Debate and Opinion from the Politics, Philosophy & Economics Departments of Notting Hill & Ealing High School
Victory at All Costs: Reassessing Churchill’s Leadership and Legacy India R, Year 12
The Price of Greatness: Reassessing Churchill in the Age of Cancel Culture Maya M, Year 12
Is democracy sustainable in a deeply polarised society? Lola B, Year 9
What is an Infant Industry and how could the government create an ‘artificial’ pathway for its success? Nina H, Year 12
The Rise of Extremism Ellie C, Year 11
Do We Need a Maximum Wage? Roma S, Year 12
Front Cover Image Drawn by Shivali, Year 12
Victory at All Costs: Reassessing Churchill’s Leadership and Legacy
By India R, Year 12
What would our lives look like today if Churchill hadn’t come to power?
Many understandably criticise Churchill’s unofficial title as the “Greatest Briton” due the fact that his
perception of society was imprisoned to orthodox ideals. As Home Secretary, in 1912, he actively advocated against Women’s suffrage and as Prime Minister he was undeniably responsible for the Bengal Famine which mercilessly took the lives of 3 million people Therefore, it can be argued that if Churchill was never in a position of power, our lives may have slightly benefited. Paving the way to women ’ s rights would have been built with less obstruction, the history books overlooking Bengal in 1943 would not have had to detail the unforgettable atrocities and the decolonisation process might have accelerated. However, Churchill being branded a racist, sexist and imperialist has tarnished his indisputable achievements as a triumphant war-time leader.
Taking the year back to 1939, when Britain declared war on Germany and the nation steeped with unease as they replayed the utter destruction of WW1, Churchill stepped up to the position of Prime Minister, a role that countless were reluctant to take, and forged Britain’s path to victory. Reflecting on Churchill’s life and legacy, our lives today would certainly look different if he had not come into power in 1940 as it would have shifted the course of WW2 in unexpected ways. Without Chuchill’s dedicated opposition to Nazi Germany, it is conceivable that there would have been more pressure to opt for a peace settlement and possibly even a surrender This is evident due to the fact some members of the government, such as Lord Halfix, strongly urged negotiations with Hitler. It is clear from Chamberlain's appeasement strategy in the 1930’s that Hitler would renege on any compromise and this is also evident with the discovery of Hitler’s plans of the Nazi puppet regime they would have turned Britain into. Churchill’s oratory skills also played an indispensable part in boosting the morale of the British public, particularly in the darkest days of the Blitz. Churchill promoted a mood of defiance which resulted in inspiring the public to stand firm.”For without victory there is no survival.” These words brought about an eruption of cheers and applause in the House of Commons as Churchill was able to produce a euphoria or irrational belief in
victory Churchill stilled any paralysis of apprehension and piloted the nation to live happily on the edge of the precipice even despite the underlying economic instability of nearly 1 million people unemployed. It is the likelihood that another leader would have lacked the rhetoric and charisma needed to rally the nation, which would have eventually resulted in the loss of the war. Furthermore, Churchill was crucial in cultivating a relationship with American President Roosevelt as they forged a bond that surmounted what was seemingly an insurmountable enemy. A strong alliance with the US lessened the financial burden as they sent a total of $4.34 billion in economic and military aid Without this, Britain would not have been able to continue fighting in the war, the nation would have been made destitute and the public would have also succumbed to poverty and starvation.
Without Winston Churchill as Prime Minister during WW2, Britain would not have secured their victory. Hitler’s plans included releasing Einsatzgruppen (death squads) to massacre anyone deemed a threat to the new order, forcing nearly half the men in Britain to slave labour in camps, factories and mines and other policies that would have shattered the fabric of British society Victory is inconceivable without the support and morale of the public and Churchill’s mesmerising speeches instilled a confidence in the nation that undoubtedly not many other leaders could manage. Victory is inconceivable without the support of other nations and Churchill and Roosevelt’s formidable rapport secured the financial stability of Britain and British endurance in the war. Victory is inconceivable with surrender and Churchill’s staunch opposition to Nazi Germany and
“Victory at all costs,” resulted in the nation's unwavering determination, which may have not been achieved with another leader who might have leaned more towards a diplomatic resolution. Despite Churchill's inexcusable controversial views on society, his indomitable spirit as Prime Minister in the 1940s was pivotal in protecting the foundations of the society we live in today.
To exhibit this, I recreated Churchill’s painting, “A view of Chartwell,” and using acetate I printed out images of the destruction that went on during WW2 in Britain Due to the transparency of the acetate, the painting is visible underneath and the acetate is also removable displaying the natural artwork below The reasoning behind this is to portray what society would have looked like without Churchill in power in 1940, the destruction and demolition Hitler would have continuously inflicted, and what society looks like today because of him.
The Price of Greatness: Churchill in the Age of Cancel Culture
By Maya M, Year 12
In today’s world of social media and cancel culture, there is a growing tendency to label historical (and modern) figures as either ‘good’ or ‘bad’. This has sparked complex, and often controversial, discussions about separating the art from the artist, whether someone can really be a ‘product of their time’ and if we should judge historical figures by our own moral standards. Winston Churchill is a
fascinating example of this conflict between a heroic legacy and deeply problematic actions. During a Black Lives Matter protest, a statue of Churchill was defaced with the words “[Churchill] was a racist”. That statement is true; Churchill did hold some racist views, but it also raises a question of whether we should define someone ’ s legacy by either their achievements or their failures. Churchill’s greatest
achievement is undoubtedly his role as Prime Minister during the Second World War In 2002, he was voted ‘the Greatest Briton’ in a BBC poll for his achievements as a wartime Prime Minister, and it is entirely possible that Britain would have lost the war without him. He recognised the threat the Nazis posed to the rest of the world as early as 1934, and continued to advocate for action in Parliament until war broke out, referring to the Munich agreement as “ a total and unmitigated defeat”. He was made Prime Minister in May 1940, and was deeply involved in both the military and diplomatic aspects of the war; he was indubitably crucial to Britain’s victory. Churchill made some of his most influential speeches during the war, and American journalist Edward Murrow commented that Churchill had “mobilised the English language and sent it into battle”, as his commitment to inspiring the public to continue with the war effort was integral to keeping Britain in the war. Furthermore, Churchill refused to sue for peace in 1940, despite pressure placed on him by Lord Halifax and others, and whilst a risky decision, it paid off and allowed Britain to win the Second World War. According to the Diary of Hugh Dalton, Churchill said “We shall go on and we shall fight it out, here or elsewhere, and if at last the long story is to end, it is better it should end, not through surrender, but only when we are rolling senselessly upon the ground ” (Dalton also added, in the margin of his diary, an alternative version: ‘If this long island story of ours is to end at last, let it end only when each of us lies choking in his own blood upon the ground.’). It is clear, therefore, that Churchill was crucial to Britain's victory in the Second World War and through his dedication and commitment, he led the Allies to victory.
In addition, during his time as a Liberal MP, Churchill was instrumental in several social reforms. He spoke in the Houses of Parliament about the National Insurance Act in 1911, which aimed to help alleviate unemployment Churchill and the Liberal Party helped create The Labour Exchanges Act of 1909, which established labour exchanges throughout Britain, which tackled problems within the labour market. Furthermore, in his 1908 speech “Social Policy”, Churchill argued for the benefits of free education. These reforms add to Churchill’s positive legacy, and the impact of these policies can be seen in Britain today.
However, Churchill was not entirely a benign figure, and some of his views and actions (or in some cases inaction) remain deeply problematic Churchill cannot be entirely excused as ‘ a product of his time’, as his views were extreme compared to his contemporaries, and he fought continuously against the independence of many British colonies based on his belief that anti-colonial campaigners were “ savages armed with ideas”. Furthermore, in 1937, he told the Palestine Royal Commission that he did not believe “that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly-wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place” During the Bengal famine of 1943, in which approximately three million people died, Churchill continued to insist that Bengal export rice, despite him refusing to meet their need for wheat. Madhusree Mukerjee, author of Churchill's Secret War, said that "[The War Cabinet] ordered the build-up of a stockpile of wheat for feeding European civilians after they had been liberated. So 170,000 tons of Australian wheat bypassed starving India - destined not for consumption but for storage", and Churchill even suggested that Indians were to blame for the famine, claiming that they "breed like rabbits". Churchill also famously referred to Gandhi as a “fakir” and said that "we should be rid of a bad man and an enemy of the Empire if he died " Moreover, Churchill is also criticised for advocating for the use of poison gas and for his treatment of strikers, all of which muddy his reputation as ‘the Greatest Briton’.
In conclusion, Churchill’s legacy remains deeply polarising: he is neither entirely a hero nor a villain. He exemplifies how an individual can be owed so much by future generations, whilst also holding problematic beliefs and being responsible for mass suffering His legacy serves as a reminder that we should judge historical figures with their full complexity, achievements and failures, in order to fully understand the influence that they have had on Britain today. It is important to acknowledge Churchill’s failings before we hail him as ‘the Greatest Briton’, but he should not be entirely condemned because he undoubtedly had a positive impact on the country.
Is democracy sustainable in a deeply polarised society?
By Lola B, Year 9
Democracy is a system that dates back to the ancient Greek times, in which power is held by elected representatives. In order to sustain democracy there needs to be a fair system where no one's vote counts more or less than another's and there needs to be motivation amongst citizens to cast their vote. However, polarisation is when people are divided into opposing groups, in this case, based on their political views. As of 2023, only 8% of the world live in a full democracy; the lowest it has been since 2006 and this is due to many factors, but is polarisation one of them?
The United States of America is a strong example to show how polarisation does in fact ruin democracy. Political polarisation in the US rapidly increased in the 2000s after media stations like Fox News and MSNBC became more opinion-driven. Before the very controversial 2016 election between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, America had full democracy but after Trump’s victory the country fell into the flawed democracy bracket. The reason for this was that 2016 was a time of social movements, like Black Lives Matter, to point out racial inequality These movements ultimately led to a lack of trust in government and law-enforcement Alongside that, Trump’s whole campaign and presidency was focused around challenging democratic behaviour, often ending up in him adopting the characteristics of a demagogue. He frequently spread false information in his favour and would appeal to prejudices of the American people. Also during the 2016 presidential race, a very notorious act of sabotage against Hilary Clinton was carried out by a group of far-right Russian hackers. Russian intelligence groups accessed emails from people who were working on Clinton’s campaign and leaked relevant emails in order to make her the less appealing candidate Despite this, Trump still lost the popular vote, which raises the question why did he become the president in 2016? The answer to this is that the US
does not select their president based off of the popular vote but instead off of the Electoral College vote, which Donald Trump did win. From these recent examples in the US it becomes clear why polarisation can sometimes affect democracy in a negative way. However, that is not always the case.
Germany is a country very well known for its past of dictatorship under Hitlers rule. However, recently Germany has built a strong democracy that is still stable regardless of their political polarisation In Germany they have a system called the Bundestag’s electoral system that helps prevent a two-party system by allowing multiple parties to gain seats. Additionally, the German Constitution is very precocious about extremist parties and has the power to ban them as of 1952 when the neo-Nazi Socialist Reich Party was banned. Overall, Germans have high election turnouts with about 76.6% of people voting in 2021; much higher than many other democracies. Hence, even though Germany did go through a period of dictatorship they managed to successfully rebuild their democracy system through strong historical awareness and legal systems By implementing systems such as the Bundestag’s electoral system Germany has become a strong example of a country that does not let polarisation seriously affect their democracy.
In the end, after comparing two culturally and politically different countries it is fair to come to the conclusion that, while some countries like Germany can sustain democracy, polarisation tends to weaken democratic systems. The US and numerous other countries go to show how leaders can use polarisation to spread misinformation and ruin citizens' trust in the government. Also as seen in the US political segregation can eventually end in tampered elections which is why Germany’s electoral system is so crucial
What is an infant industry and how could the government create an ‘artificial’ pathway for its success?
By Nina H, Year 12
An infant industry refers to a newly emerging industry The infant industry theory argues that protectionism1 is required from an infant industry at its early stages of development to ensure that it survives the brutal, already existing market in the rest of the world. As conflicting as it may sound, this term was actually coined by the world’s leading free market economy, USA’s first finance minister, Alexander Hamilton. Yes exactly! The face printed on the 10 dollar bill.
Ha-Joon Chang, a Korean economist, once stated in one of his interviews that…
“When you are trying to get into a more difficult and thereby higher return activity, developing countries have to invest in it The investment comes in the form of protection ”
Here’s an example. In the last century during the 1950s, Japan was one of the biggest manufacturers and exporters of silk, consequently silk was also the main export of Japan. Silk had been popular ever since it was invented in around 2500 BCE by Empress Leizu in China, when a tiny cocoon fell into her tea cup, and from then it has been known for being rather expensive but nonetheless still favoured by both men and women for its unique texture and it’s special shine And so, this was a good choice of industry to settle in right? But not so much for the Japanese then. They admired the steel, shipbuilding and electronics industry that, at the time, were
involved only by the strong American and the European industries Entering these industries by having to completely start from zero and recruit/reallocate new workers to the industries to start innovating meant they were completely incompetent to those advanced industries, and that most certainly they would have been destroyed in the real world market. They needed help.
In order to help this infant industry to survive and achieve economies of scale, the Japanese government decided to protect its domestic producers in these industries by imposing high tariffs2 (import taxes) as well as banning those foreign companies from operating in Japan. This therefore created room for the infant industries in Japan to develop Even more, the Japanese government asked banks to channel credits to companies in these industries rather than engaging in other activities such as mortgage loans and consumer credits. Lending to other more advanced industries also being reduced showing the large opportunity cost of growing these new infant industries. In 2023, Japan produced 87 million tonnes of crude steel, making it one of the leading manufacturers of steel in the world, also justifying the success of the infant industry policy the Japanese government decided to impose over half a century ago.
There are also a tonne of criticisms to this as well Some say that the government, through protectionism, is encouraging certain industries to be inefficient (as is the case when it comes to subsidies). As a lack of competition from those foreign companies may affect the LRAS causing it to shift inwards. There would also be a lack of incentives to innovate as governments would have restricted the imports of specific products making people have less of a choice to choose between different companies.
Others may stand in line to Adam’s theory of the invisible hand, believing that economies run best totally without government intervention Much like
the free market economy in the USA nowadays The free enterprise system that the Americans are very much proud of, so much that ‘freedom’ has become a symbol for the US. However, a downside of this is that there are potential monopolies within the market where only some benefits in the industry and others don’t.
If we were to draw the infant industry argument in line with child education, this forms a perfect debate of nature vs nurture
Thinking in this way, in my opinion, protectionism is crucial in the early stages of development of a new industry just like how each government invests in human capital for economic growth It is impossible for any country to achieve the maximum capacity of
The rise of extremism
By Ellie C, Year 11
Extremism has long been a destabilising force in global politics, leading to the violent collapse of peaceful societies and suppressing diversity of thought Rarely do individuals adopt extremist beliefs in isolation; rather, they are either instilled from birth or absorbed through relentless exposure to propaganda. Without aggressive ideological conditioning whether from childhood or through overwhelming radical rhetoric extremist beliefs are unlikely to take hold. While the fundamental causes of extremism have remained largely unchanged throughout history, the digital age has amplified its spread. The rapid expansion of media enables extremist ideologies to reach unprecedented audiences, particularly targeting vulnerable groups, especially the youth. By exploring the mechanisms behind this phenomenon, focusing on media, education, charismatic leadership, and the exploitation of young individuals, we can understand why extremism is inherently negative and must be fought against all political movements, whether extremist or not, rely on belief. However, the most effective way to cultivate unwavering devotion is through the exploitation of society’s most vulnerable. Extremist ideologies thrive when individuals are led to believe that theirs is the only legitimate way to exist. This is most easily achieved through isolation denying exposure to alternative perspectives and saturating all aspects of life, including education, media, and social interactions,
their economy right now without the long term investment into education Or else no country would ever invest in education (nor would our parents)
Another very famous quote by Ha-Joon Chang about countries promoting free trade (which opposes infant industry policies) is …
"It is a very common clever device that when anyone has attained the summit of greatness, he kicks away the ladder by which he climbed up, in order to deprive others of the means of climbing up after him.”
All in all, what do you think about the infant industry argument?
with the same ideology. This tactic has been successfully implemented throughout history One of the most well-known examples is the Hitler Youth program By 1939, membership had become compulsory, indoctrinating over eight million children into Nazi ideology through military-style training, ideological education, and loyalty pledges. This method remains effective in rural or traditional communities, where external influence is minimal. A modern example is Mormon fundamentalist groups, which enforce ideological purity by restricting outside contact and tightly controlling access to information. More aggressive implementations of these tactics are observed in authoritarian regimes, radical religious sects, and extremist political factions A recent case highlighting the vulnerability of young individuals to extremist recruitment is that of Shamima Begum, who, at just 15, left the UK for Syria to join ISIS Despite credible suspicions that she was groomed and trafficked for exploitation, the UK government stripped her of her citizenship, prioritising national security concerns over recognising her as a victim of ideological manipulation. This case exemplifies both the susceptibility of young individuals to extremist recruitment particularly via digital platforms and the reactive fear that dictates government policy. Rather than addressing the conditions that enable radicalisation, institutions often exile those indoctrinated, reinforcing cycles of alienation and extremism
Propaganda thrives where people spend most of their lives at home, in school, the workplace, and increasingly, online Within the home, it is easier to monitor and control media consumption, allowing parents or caregivers to shape a child’s worldview from an early age. Some may argue that it is within a parent’s rights to educate their children as they see fit. However, it is crucial to equip children with autonomy, knowledge, and critical thinking skills, enabling them to form their own beliefs independently. Schools and workplaces, particularly those under state control, are meant to foster intellectual discourse and diverse perspectives. However, governments have historically sought to restrict this exchange Even in developed nations, parallels can be drawn between past oppressive regimes such as the USSR and Nazi Germany and modern policies today For example, in the United States, the Republican Party has introduced, or aims to introduce, widespread book bans. Recurring themes in banned books include LGBTQ+ topics, critiques of government, and discussions of oppressive systems. Restrictions have extended into higher education, with words like "race," "LGBTQ," "activism," "women," and "victim" being flagged for review by the National Science Foundation. The absence of a national curriculum, in places like America, further enables ideological control, particularly in the deeply religious South, where schools have the power to curate and restrict educational content While the U S Constitution grants extremist groups the right to exist, a government that prioritizes their interests enables extremist hate.
A modern example of extremist ideology shaping a regime is Afghanistan under the Taliban. In 1979, the Soviet-backed Democratic Republic of Afghanistan was overthrown by Islamist insurgents, including the Taliban, who sought to establish an Islamic state. The country spiraled into radical interpretations of Islamic law, leading to widespread repression, particularly against women and minorities Under the Taliban’s rule (1996–2001), women were stripped of basic rights, banned from working, attending school, or leaving their homes without a male escort. Public executions and floggings became common, and a strict form of Sharia law was imposed, banning music, television, and certain books. Following the Taliban’s return to power in 2021, their rule has remained brutal, with continued
restrictions on women ’ s rights, the banning of girls’ education, and the persecution of ethnic and religious minorities This case highlights how extremist ideologies, when imposed by those in power, subjugate societies through fear and repression, hindering progress and stifling intellectual freedom.
The rise of social media has reshaped how people communicate, providing both opportunities and threats. While it can unite communities, it also enables the rapid spread of extremist ideologies. Platforms like X (formerly Twitter), TikTok, Instagram, and Facebook provide extremists with unprecedented reach, allowing them to spread propaganda, recruit followers, and organize movements Algorithms, designed to keep users engaged, create echo chambers where individuals are rarely exposed to opposing viewpoints. This isolation accelerates radicalisation by reinforcing extreme beliefs through validation and repetition. Extremist groups exploit these mechanisms to target young, impressionable individuals. Additionally, the anonymity of social media fosters hate speech, disinformation, and radical content. For example, ISIS used social media to recruit foreign fighters, particularly young individuals, through high-quality propaganda videos that glorified their cause. As another example, the use of memes and digital content by political parties to target younger audiences has begun to gain traction, particularly on Tik Tok Most notably, Reform UK’s online presence, particularly among youth, demonstrates this tactic. Although their real-world electoral success did not entirely match their online support, mainly due to the ages targeted on social media, their social media strategy highlights the success of digital propaganda influencing political sentiment.
While this discussion has largely focused on right-wing extremism, it is important to acknowledge that extremism exists across the political spectrum The Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin was a prime example of left-wing extremism, with purges, forced labour camps, and suppression of dissent The Cold War's "Red Scare" further intensified political repression in the West, associating leftist ideologies with national security threats. However, in the modern era, extreme leftism is overwhelmingly only linked to “wokeism,” a movement centered on social justice, focusing largely
on bringing racial, gender and sexuality to the forefront of political discussions While originally rooted in raising awareness of inequalities, critics argue that it has led to cancel culture, stifling free speech and enforcing ideological conformity. One of the most infamously debated topics being the debates over "safe spaces" in places such as universities or school, sports and private facilities (such as bathrooms) and the removal of controversial statues, both illustrate the vicious tension between activism and perceived overreach. Both left- and right-wing extremists employ similar tactics to gain and maintain power, fostering an “ us vs. them” mentality that polarises societies. However, right-wing extremism is often more dangerous due to its association with violent movements and hate groups Far-right extremists, such as neo-Nazis, have engaged in violent acts, including the 2017 Charlottesville rally. While left-wing extremism has led to violent protests, it is generally less associated with large-scale violence.
Do We Need a Maximum Wage?
By Roma Sridharan, Year 12
The richest 1 percent have more wealth than the bottom 95 percent of the world’s population put together Seems like a disproportionate statistic doesn’t it? So does this massively skewed distribution of wealth drive innovation and economic growth, or does it expose a system that favours the rich while leaving the average person behind? Arguably the wealthiest members of society create jobs, fund industries, and fuel progress. But what comes on the heels of that, is those who exploit loopholes, suppress wages, and rig the financial system to keep wealth in their hands. Many argue that a maximum wage could help address this staggering inequality but would it truly level the playing field?
Maximum Wage: What It Is, What It Does, and How It Works.
A maximum wage is a hypothetical policy that would place a cap on individual incomes. Essentially a number that salaries cannot legally surpass. The idea is that placing a maximum wage would prevent massively disproportionate amounts of money being given to the already rich. In an Ideal world, it would cap their salaries and result in a more equitable
Extremism, regardless of its political, religious, or ideological roots, threatens social stability and democratic values. This article has explored how extremist ideologies are propagated through media, education, and charismatic leaders, as well as how digital platforms amplify their reach. While extremism manifests differently across the political spectrum, the core issue remains the suppression of diversity, free expression, and moderate viewpoints. To combat extremism, it is essential to foster open dialogue, tolerance, and critical thinking. Empowering individuals to evaluate information and engage in discussions that challenge extreme views is crucial Only through collective efforts to promote understanding can societies preserve freedom, equality, and democracy for future generations
distribution of wealth. Advocates argue that a maximum wage could reduce income inequality, increase average salaries, and ensure that economic surpluses benefit society as a whole rather than being concentrated at the top But hurting the rich doesn't necessarily help the poor.
More
Than a Paycheck: How the Wealthy Make
Their Money.
To earn their daily and yearly bread, most people go to work, whether that be at job-sites or offices. But the rich are different; receiving larger parts of their incomes from business profits and capital gains Unlike wages (which come from labour), these forms of income come from owning assets rather than working for a paycheck. Wages and income are often mistaken as interchangeable metrics. They are not. Since the wealthiest individuals make much of their money from capital gains, dividends, and business profits, a maximum wage wouldn’t significantly limit their total income. And actually make a much smaller difference than people would hope for. Instead, policies like higher capital gains taxes, wealth taxes, or corporate profit regulations would be more effective in addressing income inequality at the top of the wealth pyramid There's a reason the discussion of maximum wage hasn't been in the news since 2017
This scheme is also not likely to be favorable with those it affects. If a maximum wage was enforced, high-skilled, high-earning workers may leave or work less since they wouldn't be fully compensated for their value, leading to a labour shortage With earnings capped, the incentive to exceed a certain level of productivity would disappear. Why work more, when you ’ ve already hit the ceiling on benefits?
Better
solutions: Why Impose a Ceiling When You Can Just Raise the Floor?
The average pay of a FTSE 100 chief executive officer has rocketed from around £1 million a year in the late 1990s, which was about 60 times the pay for the average UK worker, to closer to £5 million in 2014 This is more than 170 times the average worker’s pay This obviously raised issues The idea of a maximum wage in difficult times is not new. During World War II, President Roosevelt issued an executive order capping corporate salaries at $25,000 per year. He argued that if soldiers were risking their lives for just $60 a month, the wealthy should also be expected to make sacrifices. Maximum wage was actually a proposition 8 years ago. Post-Brexit, Jeremy Corbyn had called for a maximum wage for the highest earners, expressing fears that Brexit would see the UK become a “grossly unequal, bargain basement economy ” A bold claim, but not an unfounded one When asked what level the cap should be set at, Corbyn did not provide an exact figure but insisted, “Why would someone need to earn more than £50m a year?”. While some supported the idea having proposed a similar bill decades earlier others within the party were skeptical, arguing that “comprehensive and progressive reform of our tax system is the way to fix it.”. Critics like economist Danny Blanchflower called the idea “totally idiotic” and “unworkable,” suggesting that companies would simply bypass salary caps by offering alternative forms of compensation, such as profit-sharing. The Green Party also opposed the measure, calling it an “ unproven, blunt instrument which may not even help in reducing the gap between rich and poor ” Also advocating for a progressive tax system, corporate accountability measures, and stronger worker protections as more viable solutions to income inequality. Why impose a ceiling when you can just raise the floor?
Book Recommendations from your reps
Chip
War: The Fight for the World's
Most Critical Technology
By Economic Historian Chris Miller
The Financial Times Business Book of the Year Award 2022
You may be surprised to learn that microchips are the new oil the scarce resource on which the modern world depends. Today, military, economic, and geopolitical power are built on a foundation of computer chips Virtually everything from missiles to microwaves, smartphones to the stock market runs on chips Until recently, America designed and built the fastest chips and maintained its lead as the #1 superpower. Now, America's edge is slipping, undermined by competitors in Taiwan, Korea, Europe, and, above all, China. Today, as Chip War reveals, China, which spends more money each year importing chips than it spends importing oil, is pouring billions into a chip-building initiative to catch up to the US. At stake is America's military superiority and economic prosperity. ~ Goodreads
The Bottom Billion
By Economist Paul Collier, Professor of Economics at Oxford University
In this elegant and impassioned synthesis from one of the world's leading experts on Africa and poverty, economist Paul Collier writes persuasively that although nearly five billion of the world's people are beginning to climb from desperate poverty and to benefit from globalization's reach to developing countries, there is a "bottom billion" of the world's poor whose countries, largely immune to the forces of global economy, are falling farther behind and are in danger of falling apart, separating permanently and tragically from the rest of the world. Collier identifies and explains the four traps that prevent the homelands of the world's billion poorest people from growing and receiving the benefits of globalization - civil war, the discovery and export of natural resources in otherwise unstable economies, being landlocked and therefore unable to participate in the global economy without great cost, and finally, ineffective governance
The Communist Manifesto
By Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx
Despite its brevity, the manifesto is an extraordinarily effective piece of writing that combines clear, direct language with a sharp, urgent call to action. The writing of Marx and Engles is both accessible and forceful, making complex socio-economic concepts understandable to a wide audience, while also thoroughly exploring the struggles of the working class. Their argument is not only coherent and logical but also delivered with an unshakable conviction, making it one of the most influential and well-written political texts of modern history
I would highly recommend picking it up as it is such a short and easy read It is also a great gateway into political theory for anyone who is interested. For true politics fanatics I would recommend looking through some of the Goodreads comments on the book as they are really quite entertaining. Overall, if you ever find yourself looking for a lighthearted beach read about the working class uniting to overthrow the capitalist system this is the one to pick up.
The Blair Years
By Alastair Campbell
The Blair Years offers a detailed, behind-the-scenes look at Tony Blair’s time as Prime Minister, providing valuable insight into the inner workings of British politics. Campbell’s writing is clear and candid, drawing on personal experience as the PM’s spokesman from 1997-2000 as well as political analysis. The book’s style is both engaging and informative, offering a nuanced view of Blair’s leadership and the key moments that shaped his government
Something I found particularly interesting was Campbell’s exploration of the growing importance of media strategy in modern politics and the book offers valuable insights into how leaders shape their public image. This is something that is increasingly relevant in an era dominated by social media and 24-hour news cycles.
I would highly recommend this book to anyone interested in modern politics and the dynamics of government. I found it to be easy to read however, it is on the longer side so I would recommend slowly working through it (it took me ages to finish but was 100% worth it)!
