850

Beaver

Issue 850 | 01.3.16

the

Newspaper of the LSE Students’ Union

Huge UGM Turnout; School Urged to Divest, Speakeasy Survives Greg Sproston News Editor

IT WAS STANDING ROOM only in what was surely the most well attended UGM of the academic year on Thursday. Whilst two motions and a statement from the Gen Sec were on the agenda, there was no doubt that it was the Speakeasy motion that proved the greatest draw; something tacitly acknowledged by a last minute switch up from the democracy committee who shuffled the order of play to leave the debate for free speech as the finale of the meeting.

As it turned out, the results on motions calling for further divestment and banning the Speakeasy Society were far more emphatic than an engaging and sometimes fiery debate

may have suggested. 81% of students voted to mandate the Union to lobby the LSE for further divestment, whilst 77% of voters rejected the motion to ban the Speakeasy Society.

After making their initial statements, the tone of the debate on divestment was set early on by the first question from the audience. Stating that he was ‘bored’ of what seemed like endless, tokenistic motions, George Burton asked what the point of all this actually was. Using an argument that could’ve been applied to any conceivable issue brought to a UGM, Environment & Ethics Officer and motion proposer Elena Bignami stressed the importance of recording the weight of student engagement and feeling, stating that motions played a crucial role in sending a message to the

University. There was support from SU General Secretary Nona Buckley-Irvine who noted the ‘tangible effect’ of previous divestment motions in securing initial commitments to divestment and the development of a new strategy from the school. She further claimed that, since previous successful motions had acted as release valves, the School had taken its foot off the pedal and it was necessary for students to show that they were still critically engaged with the issue.

The debate veered close to farce as motion opponent Bjoern Christian Wolf asked what these tangible benefits actually were.

Nona reiterated her account that the motion had resulted in a definitive shift in terms of discourse with the school, but was interrupted by Bjoern who specified what kind of tangible

benefits he was looking for: how many kilograms of CO2 were no longer in the atmosphere as a result of previous SU divestment motions.

The audience did not seem overly perturbed that neither Nona nor the motion proposers had this information to hand.

Bjoern’s opposition to the motion centred largely around academic concerns. ‘LSE is not a mutual fund or an investment vehicle’ he argued, ‘but a research institute. Research should be the focus of what we do here’. A nuanced argument, he claimed that divestment was not only a distraction from research considerations but may result in financial woes that actively hamper the LSE’s ability to function as a top academic institute.

Given the academic consensus on climate change,

and the school’s efforts not only at external lobbying but at actively shaping the global debate via the world renowned Grantham institute, Bjoern was asked if the LSE’s reputation was risked or research legitimised if it didn’t follow its own recommendations internally. To the amusement of the audience, he offered an emphatic no, but proceedings were nudged on by the democracy committee before he had chance to elaborate.

A moderate presence throughout the UGM, Josh Hitchens tried to find common ground between the two opposing sides, asking if a compromise could be made.

Mindful of financial concerns, and citing...

Continued on Page 3

Interviews Comment Yanis Varoufakis Capping the LSE Director’s Salary Page 16 Page 8

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

editor@thebeaveronline.co.uk

News Editors Greg Sproston Joseph Briers

Beaver

the

the

Beaver

Established in 1949 Issue No. 850 - Tuesday 01 February 2016 - issuu.com/readbeaveronline Telephone: 0207 955 6705 Email: editor@thebeaveronline.co.uk Website: www.beaveronline.co.uk Twitter: @beaveronline

TWEETS OF THE WEEK Craig Calhoun @craigjcalhoun Terrific exhibits on textiles and maps at the Mohatta Palace Museum (terrific Director too). @SAsiaLSE

news@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Comment Editor Mali Williams

comment@thebeaveronline.co.uk

PartB Editors Kemi Akinboyewa Vikki Hui Flo Edwards

partb@thebeaveronline.co.uk

The City Editor Alex Gray

city@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Features Editor Alex Hurst Daniel Shears Stefanos Argyros

features@thebeaveronline.co.uk

The Nab Editor

nab@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Sport Editor India Steele

sports@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Online Editor Ellie Peake

online@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Collective Chair Perdita Blinkhorn

collective@thebeaveronline.co.uk

The Collective:

A Doherty, A, Dugan, A Fyfe, A Hurst, A Laird, A Leung, A Lulache, A Moro, A Qazilbash, A Ryzhonkova, A Santhanham, A Tanwa, A Thomson, B Phillips, B Sreejith, C Cogne, C Holden, C Loughran, C Morgan, C Hu, D Hung, D Lai, D Shears, D Sippel, D Tighe, E Arnold, E Wilkie, E Smith, G Cafiero, G Ferris, G Harrison, G Kist, G Linford-Grayson, G Manners-Armstrong, G Saudelli, H Brentnall, H Prabu, H Toms, I Plunkett, J Briers, J Clark, J Cusack, J Evans, J Foster, J Grabiner, J Heeks, J Momodu, J Ruther, J Wilken-Smith, J Wurr, K Budd, K Owusu, K Parida, K Quinn, K Yeung Goh, L Kang, L Kendall, L Erich, L Mai, L Montebello, L Schofield, L van der Linden, M Banerjee-Palmer, M Crockett, M Gallo, M Jaganmohan, M Johnson, M Neergheen, M Pasha, M Pennill, M Strauss, N Antoniou, N Bhaladhare, N Buckley-Irvine, N Stringer, 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 Povey, S Rahman, S Sebatindira, S Shehadi, S Taneja, T Mushtaq, T Odayar, T Poole, V Hui, Z Chan, Z Mahmod

Taryana Odayar on Varoufakis, Nadelmann and Elections

From the Executive Editor LAST WEEK, I HAD THE opportunity to interview both Yanis Varoufakis; former Syriza Finance Minister, and Ethan Nadelmann; Executive Director of the Drug Policy Alliance.

When compiling the Interviews section of the paper, many similarities between these two intellectual heavyweights came to mind. Both are mavericks in their own right, one for his open criticism of the inner workings of the Eurozone and his calls for reforming the European Union, and the other for his proactive stance on drug legalisation and his advocacy for major drug policy reform both in the US

and abroad.

Both are charismatic and engaging speakers, rarely holding back and conveying their viewpoint with utmost conviction, capturing the full and undivided attention of those listening. Both are deeply immersed in their subject matter, having taught and lectured at prestigious universities across the globe.

And both are on a mission to prove policy makers and legislators wrong and bring about a right royal upheaval of the status quo. Varoufakis with his bold and ambitious movement, DiEM25, and

Nadelmann with his push for decriminalising marijuana and other drugs in the US through his work with the Drug Policy Alliance.

Aside from this, this week we had the UGM motion which had an unprecedented turnout, more of which can be found on the cover and page 3 of this paper. With election fever in the air, next week we will be publishing the LSE SU ELECTS election pullout, which aims to give a complete and comprehensive breakdown of how the upcoming LSE SU Elections. Till next week!

Nona Buckley-Irvine @nonajasmine Classic - Labour NEC entrant in smear scandal http:// w w w. m o r n i n g s t a ro n l i n e. co.uk/a-45c6-Labour-NECentrant-in-smear-scandal#.

VtG8ssam__2.twitter …

Aysha AF @AyshaFekaiki Support @nonajasmine #CallItOut campaign! Call out sexual harassment @lsesu

James Wurr @JamesWurr I found 269 people who don’t follow me back (via whofollowedmeback.org) Mahatir Pasha @Mahatir_pasha Great turnout at UGM today @lsesu

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

George Harrison @George_Haz Rohan: I heard the pill is bad for your fertility though McKenzie Crockett @redbutnotred @seany180 brought me to tears tonight! Fucking awesome #bloodbrothers

Huge UGM Turnout; School Urged to Divest, Speakeasy Survives Greg Sproston News Editor Continued from cover the disastrous global oil prices, he asked whether it might be reasonable to commit the school to divestment without commitment to a timeframe which could be financially ruinous. The response from motion seconder Anna Koolstra was positive. ‘We just want a pledge’ she said.

An audience already energised from the first debate was excited further still by the subtle implication from the democracy committee that the second motion was, by student politics standards at least, quite a big deal. A point of order came from the UGM chair, Katie Flynn, who notified that any questions relating to the Speakeasy motion would only be taken if an LSE student ID card was shown - justified on the basis of national press interest in the story and the necessity of only having members of the student body interact with the democratic process.

First time UGM attendees of which there were many - may have been confused by motion proposer Maurice Banerjee Palmer’s opening statement,

during which he implored people not to vote for his motion, saying he did not want to actually ban the society with a look of slight incredulity on his face that things had come so far. Although initially a joke, Maurice told the audience that the motion was not without merit and that it raised valid concerns. In what has become the Godwin’s law of free speech discourse, Maurice asked Speakeasy if they would invite ISIS to speak at LSE. The spirit of the motion was perhaps more accurately expressed by Josh Hitchens, a last minute addition as motion seconder. He conceded that there were issues with free speech on campus that were perhaps reflective of wider societal issues.

Singling out women, LGBT and minority groups as people on campus who didn’t always feel comfortable speaking out.

Josh argued that the Speakeasy society did not help these people and may compound issues; rounding off with the charge that Speakeasy was a group for middle class white guys.

The ad-hom charge was immediately rejected by motion opposition and Speakeasy committee member Yusuf Taryar, ‘I’m from Syria,’ he began ‘and I only moved here 4

years ago’. The same logic was used to reject the notion that ISIS could be invited to campus.

It was, David Cameron might have said, a suggestion ‘for the birds’.

The Speakeasy representatives stated categorically that they would not compromise the safety of any student and that the society was not merely about causing offence. Stating that the group was as much about the exchange of ideas as much as it was about campaigning, Connor Naylor said that the society aimed to question the concept and nature of free speech in general.

The society had a hard time from the audience, though. 3rd year Nikhil Parmar in particular was strongly critical, asking how a society could be formed around the concept of free speech without engaging with the discriminatory provisions of Theresa May’s ‘PREVENT’ legislation.

In defence, Connor argued that the society had only existed for 3 weeks and that it takes time to develop unified, coherent positions on such external matters, but the audience did not seem impressed. However, they rewarded Josh Hitchens with sustained applause and cheers of approval when he accused the

Speakeasy society of self publicising behaviour at the School’s expense. Referencing the now famous Evening Standard article, Josh accused the society of overstating the issues on campus and portraying the school in a bad light to further their own agenda.

The Speakeasy society acquitted themselves well in the debate, but the audience seemed unimpressed. It was surprising, then, that a straw poll of attendees at the end of the hour showed extremely little support for banning the society.

This initial poll was reflected in the eventual e-vote, and it is perhaps a result that everyone is happy with. The Speakeasy society are allowed to continue to exist and took the opportunity to better express their aims as a group and critics of the society were given a platform to articulate their opposition. Meanwhile, the democracy committee will be delighted with such high UGM turnout and will hope the enthusiasm continues until at least next week where an emergency meeting will be held on 1 March to discuss conditions for prisoners in the UK. Lastly, the student body at large is spared an ignominious and embarrassing situation in which a free speech society could have been banned.

News | 3

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

News

4

| Tuesday 1 March, 2016

NUS Sees First National Transgender Candidate

Bhadra Sreejith Deputy News Editor ANNA LEE, A STUDENT AT Lancaster University, is running to become the National Union of Students (NUS) women’s officer.

She is the first openly transgender woman to stand for election in a national role. She spent the last year as VP Welfare and Community of her union, and identifies as a “queer trans disabled lesbian woman”.

Anna was elected onto the NUS Women’s Committee as a transgender representative. The 23 year old, who studies Maths, transitioned four years ago and describes how, in her five years having been involved in the student movement, she has “changed a lot.” On her Facebook post announcing her intention to run, she says “It’s been four years since I first ran for election, driven by anger. I was angry, really angry,

about how badly I had been treated when I came out. Over these years, I’ve had space to grow and develop my own politics, and my passion has become unstoppable.”

She also added, “Mainstream feminism constantly forgets about trans women, let alone a queer trans disabled lesbian woman.

But the NUS Women’s Campaign should be fighting for educational, community and social spaces that ALL women can be part of, not just a few.” In an interview with the Guardian, Anna Lee said that she had faced harassment online due to her decision to run, as well as people dismissing her as a “one-issue candidate”.

She claims that the Women’s Officer role at the NUS does not require someone who represents all women, but someone who creates a diverse committee of women who work together and get more women involved, and that she is well placed to do so.

Beware the Iron Lady!

Alina Ryzhonkova Deputy News Editor THE WAR ON DRUNK AND rowdy students goes as far back as the history of universities themselves. Attempts to stop and discourage such behavior have been varied and numerous. Centuries ago some universities made their students wear red gowns that prevented them from entering drinking establishments; nowadays there are dry halls of residence and various other restrictions. Although some measures, such as ‘dry’ areas on campus, are relatively new and often even controversial, they are still fairly standard. Some University of Kent students have chosen to take a decidedly less standard approach to the matter. The Kent University Conservative Association (KUCA) has launched a petition to erect a 250-foot statue of Margaret Thatcher on campus, across from the university nightclub.

The towering “Colossus” is meant to “encourage good and sensible behavior” amongst students. Presumably by terrifying the living daylights out of inebriated revelers as they stumble out of the nightclub after long nights of debauchery and excess only to find themselves face-to-face with a humongous Margaret Thatcher that would dwarf the Leaning Tower of Pisa. According to the plans put forward by the KUCA, the Iron Lady’s 30 foot tall handbag would be made of highly polished bronze, so as to reflect the sun at certain times of day, and presumably to keep the aforemen-

tioned drunken revelers in line by blinding them if a spotlight is trained on the handbag just so. If a 30-foot tall handbag that turns the statue into a literal “shining testament to liberty” does not seem like quite enough, the monument is to stand on a 50-foot tall pedestal and is to be made entirely of iron, excluding the handbag of course.

In just a few days, the petition to erect the 250-foot, Greco-Roman styled statue of the ex-Prime Minister has collected just over half the votes needed to progress to the next stage. Speaking with The Tab, the KUCA chairman, Emilio Kyprianou, has said that

the petition was started in order to highlight problems with the current petitioning process at the university. Nonetheless, this is not the first time that KUCA has attempted to erect a statue of Margaret Thatcher – in 2013 a petition to erect a 200-foot statue failed to pass. With days to go before the petition closes, there is still a chance that the more ambitious 250-foot statue proposal may “dazzle the eyes of those lefties” and forever change drunken student behavior in Kent. At the very least, we might finally see the great Scottish tradition of placing traffic cones on the heads of statues finally imported to England.

Sparks Fly at Student Run Entrepreneurship Conference Joseph Briers News Editor BIG NAMES IN BUSINESS will flock to the School this week as LSE hosts the UK’s largest student-run entrepreneurship conference. ‘Sparks 6.0’ is the latest incarnation of the popular conference which this year will host a number of illustrious business leader in the hope that their acumen with somehow rub off on the 450 students who are due to attend. Lord Karan Bilmoria, the founder of Cobra Beer, will no doubt inspire attendees into entrepreneurial action alongside his co-speakers who include Russell Hall, cofounder of Hailo, Dragon’s Den investor Rachel Elnaugh, and Alan Giles, managing director of Waterstones.

Of the almost half a thousand students listening to and networking with

such luminaries will be 20 pupils from underprivileged backgrounds, a move that will likely be of huge benefit to youngsters hoping to start up their own businesses in the near future and make valuable contacts in a world where who you know can unlock doors, as well as helping to ease the social conscience of ‘big business’.

Sparks President Charlie Bullock, who studies Accounting and Finance at the LSE, said of the event “ We want to bring together like-minded individuals from across the country and encourage them to stretch their imagination and explore a career path outside traditional graduate schemes.”

The conference will be opened by for mer Secretary of State for Business Vince Cable, just one of the more than 50 global figures that Sparks has hosted since its inception in 2010.

Good Muslim, Bad Muslim?

European Society Discuss Islam Alina Ryzhonkova Deputy News Editor WITH DONALD TRUMP calling for Muslims to be banned from entering the United States and Europe in the midst of an ‘immigrant crisis’, it could not be more important to dispel myths and stereotypes about the proverbial ‘other’. Often, Islam is seen as incompatible with Western values due to its emphasis on adherence to religious obligations above any other wider civic duties. Unanswered questions and a lack of understanding fuels discrimination, othering, and fear. This is further exacerbated by the much publicized, though largely limited, cases of Muslims traveling to countries like

Syria in order to join terrorist organizations. The European Society will seek to dispel myths and answer questions with their event entitled “Good Muslim, Bad Muslim? Contemporary Reflections on Identity, Integration and Radicalisation in Europe”, which is scheduled to take place on Thursday 3 March in Clement House.

Dr. Usama Hasan, who became a radical Salafi activist as a teenager and took part in the ‘Jihad’ against Communist forces in Afghanistan while a Cambridge undergraduate, will chair the panel. Dr. Hasan’s opinions changed in the aftermath of the 7/7 bombing and he took it upon himself to start campaigning against extremism

and for religious reform. He is now a Senior Researcher at the Quilliam Foundation, focusing on questions regarding minority rights and personal freedoms, and seeks to harmonise tradition and reason, faith and science. On the panel will be Dr. Heiko Henkel, a professor at the Copenhagen University and current visiting fellow at the LSE, Dr. Joseph Downing, a guest teacher at the LSE European Institute, Dr. Maria W. Norris, a guest teacher at the LSE, and Adela Taleb, a PhD student working on the role of the European Union and panEuropean Muslim organizations in the discursive field of “European Islam”.

The panel will start off the discussion by addressing the key

issues of the space of religion in the public sphere in Europe, Muslims in Europe beyond the migration and integration debate, as well as giving their thoughts on radicalisation and Islam in Europe. Staying true to the European Society discussion format, the public will then be divided into smaller roundtable groups, each chaired by a speaker, in order to encourage discussion among the students on the topics covered by the panel.

The European Society discussion events are always a refreshing take on the usual panel discussions and guest lectures at the LSE, which whilst informative and thoughtprovoking, leave little room for discussion and debate. This one promises to be no different.

Newly formed Sexpression Society Arouses Student Interest on Campus Greg Sproston News Editor A NEW SOCIETY HAS BEEN formed at LSE with the goal of widening the debate on sex and relationships amongst stduents.

Called Sexpression, the group is affiliated with a nationwide student led organisation which empowers young people to make informed decisions about their sexuality.

The society will not just be active at LSE, as the group nationally campaign for better sex and relationship education in schools. At LSE specifically, however, LSESU Sexpression plan to hold workshops and informal seminars on a variety of

topics including consent, sexuality, contraception, sexually transmitted infections as well as informational sessions on sex and relationships in general.

The formation of the society is particularly relevant at a time when the Conservative government has refused to make sex education compulsory in schools, despite the backing of four parliamentary select committeees, five teaching unions, six medical royal colleges and the Chief Medical Officer.

Anyone interested in Sexpression and their events on campus or their plans for wider activism should search ‘Sexpression at LSE’ on Facebook.

News | 5

London Uni Roundup

Students across the country have been lobbying for the earlier release of exam timetables by their universities and earlier this year it looked like the UCL students had been one of the few groups to succeed. Celebrations of success did not last though, as, after promising to release exam timetables a month earlier than usual, UCL has now gone back on their initial announcement and postponed the release until further notice. One of the reasons given for the delay is a struggle to find enough room for exams; as the UCL campus undergoes redonstruction the usual exam venues are unvailable this year, leaving the administration scramlbing to find enough venues for 2000 exams.

The annual RAG Week bungee jump, which traditionally happens from a crane over Queen’s Lawn, has been rescheduled, cancelled and reapproved this year. Having first been rescheduled due to the weather, the organizers were contacted just days before the jump was to take place by senior college officials and told the jump would not be going ahead due to health and safety concerns; although there had not been any health and safety concerns beforehand. The committee has now been provisionally allowed to reschedule the jump for the end of March. However, it has yet to be confirmed. This marks yet another blow to the RAG committee who have been plagued with issues all year; from their magazine getting banned to a Jailbreak team being removed from a flight due to terrorism suspicions.

KCL Students’ Union Officers have put forward a proposal at the AGM to reform the structure of the Union. The motion, proposed

by Student Officers and titled “Student Officer Structure” failed to pass by 20 votes. The motion was met with much opposition and debate and was the only not to pass this year. The move came as a result of a democratic review of the KCLSU and proposed a less hierarchical structure, with position names like “President” being replaced by a division of labour among the officers along academic lines. The move was deemed to be too depoliticizing of the traditional roles.

6

| Tuesday 1 March, 2016

Goldsmith Releases Tax Returns in Effort to Quell ‘Non-dom’ Accusations From Mayoral Opponents Joseph Briers News Editor CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE for mayor of London, Zac Goldsmith has published, in full, his tax returns after increasing pressure from both his opponents and the media amidst claims over his nondomiciled status. Pressure peaked as Goldsmith was repeatedly prodded by a particularly tenacious Evan Davies on the flagship BBC show Newsnight. The MP for Richmond was visibly unsettled by Evans’ questioning in what was a surprising display of what could almost be described as frustration from the perennially cool and composed candidate.

The returns show that Goldsmith has earned over £10 million from income and capital gains since his election six years ago, which was also the time at which he gave up his non-dom status.

No records previous to this period were released. Zac is the son of billionaire Sir James Goldsmith,

and is paid from a trust set up in his name following his father’s death and subsequent bequeathal of an estimated £200-300 million. Following the publishing of his returns, Goldsmith released a statement: ‘I have today published my tax return details, prepared and verified by PwC … I gave a commitment to do so and today I deliver on that promise. I look forward to all mayoral candidates doing the same so London voters can judge us equally’.

Neil Coyle, Labour MP for Southwark and Bermondsey, was not convinced by Goldsmith’s supposed reveal. Speaking to the Guardian, he said - “They don’t explain any detail of the benefits he derived from his non-domiciled tax status or explain why he bought his London home through a Cayman Islands trust”.

Goldsmith’s Labour counterpart, Sadiq Khan, also published his returns which revealed a decidedly less substantial, but still rather comfortable fortune. The Tooting MP has earned approximately

£650,000 since his entry into the Houses of Parliament. Mr Khan was paid a £1500 appearance fee from Have I Got News for You, which he then donated to charity.

In other Mayoral news, Green Party Candidate Sian Berry has slammed the unaffordability of studying in modern London. In an article in the Huffington Post, she writes of her incredulity at the cost of student living and fear for the future of scholarship in the city should the trend continue.

‘I’m told that any room costing as little as £150 a week is usually too good to be true. There will be hidden catches - non-refundable deposits, extra months to pay for outside term-time - and horror stories abound...Do we really want great institutions like the London School of Economics and Imperial College to be effectively closed to our own young people because they can’t afford to live in London?’.

Incumbent Mayor Boris Johnson was at the centre of Brexit hubbub this week as he declared

that he would be throwing his considerable political heft behind the campaign to leave the European Union. Zac Goldsmith is similarly aligned on the issue of Europe leaving Sadiq Khan as the major Bremain voice on the London scene. Khan warns that the effects of a Brexit could be catastrophic for the UK, and the capital in particular. ‘Zac Goldsmith’s desire to leave Europe poses a serious threat to Londoners’ jobs, livelihood and security...London is the business capital of Europe and it benefits hugely from proper access to EU markets and, through them, the world’, he wrote in the Evening Standard.

London finds itself caught up in a political perfect storm with the EU referendum and Mayoral election due to occur within just one month of each other. Leaflets and accusations are sure to fly in equal measure. Campaigners on all sides will do well to ensure that Londoners do not suffer from political fatigue.

Mayor Watch It Begins!

LONDON ELECTS A NEW mayor on 5 May this year. We think it’s important enough to devote column space to for every remaining issue this year; London’s Mayor is not a ceremonial role and whoever is elected will have a quantifiable impact on your life in London. For the rest of term, we aim to provide fair coverage and raise awareness of candidates, issues, parties and procedural issues. The voter registration deadline (you can register online!) is the 16th of April and you are eligible to vote if you are a British, European (EU) or Commonwealth Citizen. For now, take a look at the article opposite for your latest fix of mayoral news.

The Student Union’s Role LSESU, IN CONJUNCTION with UAL’s Union, is running a student housing crisis pledge.

They want all candidates in the election to pledge to: building 50,000 (or more) houses per year; demonstrating their definition of ‘affordable housing’ is inclusive of students by taking into account the money available for a minimum student loan entitlement; protect housing rights by making more resources available to Tenancy Relations Officers. The SU will also be running a voter registration drive.

Changes to the electoral registers means that students are no longer automatically registered to vote and the SU will be on hand to make sure you can use your voice in this critical election.

The Beaver’s Role

WE ABSOLUTELY AGREE that housing is a top priority for students and Londoners, but it isn’t the only thing that’s important. For the remainder of term we’ll be using the print edition, Beaver Online and social media to raise awareness of issues and policies that are important. Students are a vital component in London’s communities but as a constituency some issues are more important to students than other types of voters, and these issues are sometimes underrepresented in mainstream coverage. We aim to provide information on these issues and help flesh out the stances of all the election candidates to ensure that LSE students can go to the polls fully confident that they can make a good decision.

News | 7

News Analysis : LSE Report Explores Impact of Brexit or Bremain Pierluigi Collina Undergraduate Student LSE RESEARCH IS URGING both sides of the British EU referendum to stop squabbling, act like grown ups and give the voters some information. It corroborates the Conservative narrative and unofficial campaign slogan ‘Leap into the dark’; a phrase which, incredibly, has already overtaken ‘long term economic plan’ in its ability to irritate.

The report notes the quantifiable economic benefits of European integration whilst also conceding that a trade off between these and sovereignty is inescapable. However, given

that some Brexit campaigns - particularly Grassroots Out - are strongly critical of the Westminster bubble, it is unclear quite why more sovereignty is seen as a good thing.

Report authors Dr. Dhingra and Dr. Sampson also level some criticism towards those in the Remain camp; stating that it is inevitable that the EU would remain the UK’s biggest trading partner and implying that a complete breakdown in relations following Brexit is unlikely. The report notes that a far more salient question revolves around labour; particularly what the outcomes would be for the 3 million EU migrants in the UK (who are net contributors to the

national economy) along with the 2 million UK migrants found elsewhere in Europe.

They note that any formal agreement with the EU, whether that is via a ‘Norway’ or ‘Swissstyle’ option, would mean paying less into the EU. Norway contributes 83% of what the UK currently does, with Swiss contributions to the EU at 40%.

Both of these options, however, would leave the UK obligated to comply with some elements of EU policy without having any input into the legislative process - Sovereignty indeed.

It is claimed that ‘going it alone’ in the WTO would result in a sharp fall in income, and a recent trade deal between

Canada and the U.S shows the potential for pitfalls when negotiating from a weaker position. The argument is not that the UK is incapable of going alone, but that a post-Brexit UK would have significantly less negotiating power than it does currently, and that this will inevitably have an effect.

The report conceives the referendum as a process in which any decision will have both benefits and drawbacks. Whether the findings of this report are accepted or not, surely all sides of the debate will agree that an open, honest debate is required for voters to make an informed choice - something that certainly is not occurring at present.

News In Brief LSE Graduation Ball Sells Out Amidst Controversy The LSESU Graduation Ball has sold out in just 22 hours. Early Bird tickets were £55, with Standard tickets being £65. The price includes a champagne reception, a three-course meal, and a DJ, with dancing until 3 am. Controversy erupted when demand vastly outstripped supply, with only 500 tickets available for the ball despite there being 4000 students graduating, and no restriction on non-LSE students or first and second-year students. The General Secretary stated that this level of interest was unprecedented and that the LSESU was looking into other options to allow more people to attend.

Village offers £275,000 reward to catch goose’s killers

Snakes in Suits: Sikh-Punjab Society Host Sexual Abuse Charity Harish Malhi Undergraduate Student ON 18TH FEBRUARY, THE LSESU Sikh-Punjab Society welcomed Bhai Mohan Singh from the Sikh Awareness Society (SAS). The SAS, founded in 1998 amongst growing concerns of the ‘grooming’ of Sikh youth, is a community-based, non-profit organisation. In order to raise awareness of the issue and help those at risk to protect themselves, the SAS visit universities and schools around the country. The charity provides information, education and support services to victims of grooming and assault. This includes a 24-hour confidential helpline, in addition to counselling and rehabilitation services.

The SAS have helped many victims of sexual grooming, with the talk drawing upon a large number of horrifying true stories. The charity defines grooming as “the process by which an offender draws a victim into a sexual relationship and maintains that relationship in secrecy”, with six stages including targeting the victim, gaining

the victim’s trust and sexualising the relationship.

Much of the talk focused on sexual abuse on university campuses, including the role played by the student drinking culture which leads to the additional risk of drinks being “spiked”. While some of these statistics and cases have been widely reported in the media, there is still an issue with victims of abuse being afraid to speak out about what has happened to them or not receiving the right support. The talk highlighted that this is a particular problem in the Asian community, where such issues are considered a “taboo” subject and hence victims are even more reluctant to come forward.

If you are interested in learning more about the charity and their work, please visit their website at www.sasorg.co.uk or like their Facebook page (search: Sikh Awareness Society). The SAS were also featured on a BBC Inside Out documentary which contains more information and advice - the video can be found on YouTube.

Two men in Sandon, Hertfordshire have offered a large reward to anyone who can catch the killer of a beloved local goose. The bird, inspiredly known as ‘Goose’, died on Sunday and there are already calls of fowl play. According to reports from villagers, he was shot with an air rifle by a man leaning out of a 4x4 vehicle. The police have stated that officers are to dig up its body so a full autopsy can take place to confirm exactly how the bird died. The Goose was born in the village 11 years ago but was orphaned as a youngster after his parents were mauled to death by a fox. The Beaver asks: will the tragedy ever end?

Call It Out! Campaign Launch The LSESU passed policy last year to introduce formally a zero tolerance approach to sexual harassment in the Union. The implementation started last week.

The message is that sexual harassment is not tolerated, at bars, at events, or during the daytime.

Sanctions include removal from the event, barring from entrance to SU spaces, or depending on the level, removal of SU membership. In partnership with the Good Night Out campaign, all bar staff are to be trained in how to deal with sexual harassment on a night out in the Tuns or Venue. Posters detailing this are already up around the campus.

|

Tuesday 1 March, 2016

Capping the LSE Director’s Salary Why the LSE does not need a superstar director with an increased salary

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

THE PREVIOUS DIRECtor of LSE was paid roughly £200,000. The current Director is paid roughly £400,000. Will the next Director be paid £800,000?

Something along these lines is possible if LSE continues to drift towards a corporate model of organisation.

One of the hardest pills to swallow is that student satisfaction has plummeted at the same time as the Director’s salary doubled. It almost begs the question, what could possibly justify an extra £200,000 a year? Because it certainly isn’t improvement in our student satisfaction.

The main indicator of a superstar status is, of course, the remuneration they receive. The drift towards the superstar style of appointment is damaging in the corporate world, and is especially damaging in the university world. In the corporate world it is believed the senior administrator should be the highest paid person in the organisation. Their remuneration is constantly increased against comparable salaries meaning ‘the going rate’ climbs year on year. Not to mention the

“One of the hardest pills to swallow is that student satisfaction has plummeted at the same time as the Director’s sallary has doubled.”

“When the administrator becomes a kind of spiritual leader expressing the intellectual goals of the organisation, it drains the lifeblood of the school.” use of bonuses, implying that doing the job well is not an expectation and has to be rewarded in addition to a huge contractual salary.

In the university context this corporate model is both out of place and detrimental to the functioning of the institution. Apart from being unfair and inappropriate, these levels of remuneration are many times higher than the average in the organisation and have a distorting effect on the working relations within the administration. Moreover, the ever growing multiples of top as against average pay have an unhealthy effect on the relation between the administration and the teaching and research side of academic life.

Administration is highly important and much admired. Organisations benefit enormously when it is done well. But the Director is only a part of the team.

When the senior administrator is accorded a superstar status, the only justification for this rate of pay and the attendant status is that we have a truly and unusually talented individual at the helm. Rather than forming part of a team, the Director instead

becomes the ‘saviour’ of the institution. Of course, the best highly paid leaders resist this and keep it in check, up to a point.

When the administrator becomes a kind of spiritual leader expressing the intellectual goals of the organisation, it drains the lifeblood of the school — that is, its academic fervour and breadth of opinion. Shouldn’t staff and students have their own voices?

Surely there is no such thing as a single LSE view anyway.

It is understandable that failing universities, and corporations, may hope that by appointing a saviour or a superstar of truly great proportions, they may be able to reverse their current decline. However, LSE is not an institution that is failing enough to warrant bringing in ‘the big guns’ of a highly paid, head-hunted Director to save us from our inevitable decline (and even if it was, there is little to suggest this works anyway). We just need a good administrator. That’s it. Everything else, everything that can make LSE great, is up to its academic staff and students because we are an academic institution, not a corporation. We believe this drift towards a corporate model at LSE has contributed to falling rates of satisfaction among both staff and students. In addition, it is a model that works against the notion that universities should be driven by their pioneering academics.

In view of these considerations the corporatisation of LSE should be challenged and the Director’s salary should be capped at £200,000 (in line with inflation etc.). This does not relate to the current holder of the post either in terms of salary or performance.

This is a proposal in principle.

A high salary for the post of Director at LSE has a negative effect on the performance of the post and the well-being of the School. It distorts the relation

between the senior administrator and other members of the administrative team. It warps the relation between the administrative and academic activities of the school. It is not conducive to the academic function of a university.

“Nor is a high salary necessary in order to attract the best person for the job.”

Nor is a high salary necessary in order to attract the best person for the job. It is unlikely that the person who would be Director for say £400,000 but not at £200,000 is really right for the post. A huge academic literature seriously questions the need for high salaries for CEOs and the alleged contribution they make.

Moreover, a capped salary would almost entirely remove any possible stigma that the holder of the post is of less worth.

Neither is the Director’s salary an indicator of the significance of the school. The significance of the school is its intellectual significance. From the point of view of attracting staff and students, a more effective institution is likely to be the main factor, not the symbolic nature of the Director’s salary. Moreover, the actual work of the school should set and embody the tone, not the views of a figurehead.

The corporatisation of LSE whereby the Director is seen as some intellectual beacon — the face of the LSE if you will — is a new idea, and frankly one that isn’t working. Corporatisation of our academic institutions needs to stop, starting with capping disproportional salaries.

Credit: LSE Occupation: www.rs21.org.uk

Molly Farrow Undergraduate Student

Comment

8

Comment | 9

It’s Time for LSE to Divest the Rest The student body has spoken: it is time for LSE to divest from oil and gas companies David Kampmann LSE Divest ON FRIDAY 26TH FEBRUARY, LSE’s Students’ Union passed a motion for full fossil fuel divestment with 81% of students’ votes (379 out of 469) backing the proposal that LSE should remove investments in oil, gas and coal companies from its GBP 97.2 million endowment fund portfolios.

The voting result sends a clear signal to the school’s decision makers that the partial divestment decision announced in November 2015 does not go far enough in meeting the school’s responsibility to contribute to the global efforts to mitigate climate change. The voting result also reinforces the mandate for SU officers to represent students’ interests by urging members of LSE’s committees and governing bodies to take further steps towards the exclusion of investments in oil and gas companies.

After a two year-long divest-

“The voting result also reinforces the mandate for SU officers to represent students’ interests...”

ment campaign led by the student group LSE Divest, LSE’s Council announced on the 26th November 2015 that the school ‘will seek to progressively reduce’ investments in those companies with operations linked to the extraction of thermal coal and oil from tar sands. The Council based its decision on the fact that these two energy sources are the most polluting fossil fuels.

However, the voting result from last Friday shows that students think divesting from oil and gas companies such as Royal Dutch Shell, BP and ExxonMobil is also absolutely necessary for LSE to bring its investments in line with its values, which are outlined in the school’s Ethics Code.

The reasons for this is that these international oil and gas companies are widely perceived as standing in the way of the energy transition, which will be necessary to meet the climate goals of last year’s UNFCCC’s Paris Agreement. In order to limit global warming to ‘well below 2°C’, scientists agree that the world economy will have to be decarbonised in the second half of this century. Therefore, at least 33% of global oil, 50% of natural gas and 80% of coal reserves have to remain unproduced to avoid carbon emissions which would push global warming above 2°C. These numbers were confirmed by research of LSE’s own Grantham Research Institute.

To put it simply, in a couple of decades we must reduce carbon emissions to zero to hopefully avoid catastrophic droughts, sea level rise, and other consequences of global warming outlined by the IPCC. For ExxonMobil & co this means not only that part of their oil and gas reserves must remain unproduced, but also that they will have to fundamentally shift their business model from fossil fuel extraction to electricity generation from renewable energies.

However, oil and gas companies are heading into the opposite direction. All major oil companies have rejected that any of their own reserves might have to remain unproduced, while they continue to invest billions of dollars into the exploration of new reserves. ExxonMobil stated meeting the 2°C target is ‘highly unlikely’ and started last year a Joint-Venture to drill for oil in the Russian Arctic. BP, Shell and other oil majors found

“Under these circumstances, responsible investors such as LSE have to take action to influence oil executives’ behaviour.” the ‘Oil Gas and Climate Initiative’ in October 2015 mainly promising to lower emissions from operations.

Oil executives seem to ignore climate science and the 2°C target.

This is not about tackling inefficiencies and emissions along the supply chain of oil and gas production anymore, it is about the very core business of their companies, the extraction of oil and gas. The longer oil executives delay the necessary

shift towards renewable energy, the greater the risk of catastrophic climate change consequences.

Under these circumstances, responsible investors such as LSE have to take action to influence oil executives’ behaviour. However, shareholder engagement efforts have not delivered any tangible results yet, while oil executives still promote business as usual. A prominent example is the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, a large institutional investor from the US, who divested from oil and gas companies after several engagement efforts had failed. For LSE, divestment from oil and gas companies is the only option left to align its investment portfolio with its ethical principles. It is not only morally wrong to endorse oil and gas companies’ current business practices and strategic plans by staying invested, but also hypocritical to justify continued ownership with superior portfolio returns.

Behind the Free Speech Debate

Following the UGM, we must look at the political agenda behind the free speech debate shouldn’t have a democracy be- is a current trend in the right wing straight into a trap made by the Frank Morley “So, I decided we cause someone might get elected press in defaming or scapegoating Tory press, and he dragged the rest Undergraduate Student to cave in to the whom we disagree with. That is certain groups which fit the politi- of the student body with him. This up until the point that a democ- cal aims of the Tory party. Whether is why at the start of the UGM, trend and write racy elects someone who wants to it be Jeremy Corbyn as a rabid un- after only having read his childSO, I DECIDED TO CAVE IN to the trend and write about the the foundations of de- patriotic communist, or Muslims ish article, and the admittedly one about the free undermine free speech debacle. I had decided mocracy, similarly freedom should as sympathetic to terrorists, or the sided humansofLSE, I was a little initially not to write anything about speech debacle.” be curtailed when someone is using poor as lazy benefit thieves, or stu- angry. But after the debate, I was it because it was such a saturated topic within The Beaver and on campus, but after following the issue closely and going to the UGM on Thursday, I find myself compelled to do so.

Firstly, I would like to give a perspective on my opinions on free speech to give this article some context. I am a free speech absolutist. I think that free speech is a human right like the right to privacy, education, clean water, and that any infringement on it is both misguided and dangerous. It is misguided in the sense that free speech protects minority views from the tyranny of a dictator or the majority, and dangerous in the sense that an infringement of these views, if they are stamped out, is part of the recipe for totalitarianism.

I strictly follow the logic that no liberty should be infringed upon unless it has directly violated the liberty of someone else. Being of-

fended may affect your sensibilities, but not your freedom. Nor is it your right to shut them up. From my point of view, any cartoonist can draw a picture of the prophet Mohammed, and any offended person in response can protest freely, and burn a Dutch (or British) flag. What I don’t support is the use of physical violence directed against either side, and this is where I draw the line. If it isn’t there, then where?

The definition of hate speech, much like the definition of terrorism, is so broad and ambiguous that it can be applied to almost anyone in any context for any political objective, be it commendable, like the Safe Spaces campaign, or repressive, like the government’s new Prevent program.

Saying some shouldn’t have the freedom of speech because it gives a platform to people we disagree with, is tantamount to saying that

it to undermine the foundations of freedom. That is the line.

You would expect then, when I saw the recent articles in The Telegraph and The Daily Mail that I was pleased that these newspapers had virtuously taken up the mantle for freedom of speech on university campuses, with absolutely no hidden agenda. I wasn’t buying it.

The coverage was not helpful to the free speech movement.

This is especially the case as these newspapers do not even support free speech themselves. Take for example, the issue of whistleblowing, where the right wing press has denounced any attempts to leak illegal activities from government agencies, even if these leaks don’t harm anybody. Or their collusion in Ian Duncan Smith’s attempt to cover up the 2,500 people who died after being labelled ‘fit for work’. No, the agenda they are pushing is far more sinister. There

dents as entitled left wingers who are too sensitive to handle any criticism – they don’t deserve free tuition fees like our generation!

Unfortunately, Maurice Banerjee Palmer, by proposing a motion to ban a free speech society, fell

“Unfortunately, Maurice, by proposing a motion to ban a free speech society, fell into the trap made by the Tory press, and he dragged the student body with him.”

pleasantly surprised and was very encouraged with what I saw.

Maurice had put forward the motion as a joke, and by the end of the debate the true genius of this joke became clear. By submitting this provocative motion he had mobilised students in the university like never before, and ensured a debate that otherwise would not have happened. Neither side were the ‘pro hate speech’ or ‘anti liberty’ groups that they were painted as.

Both wanted very much the same thing, to have a frank and open debate about freedom of speech; and that is exactly what they achieved.

In the end, the UGM overwhelming voted to not ban the free speech society, by about 100 to 2.

It was a ringing endorsement of the ideas of free speech, through an ingenious method for a debate to occur. My only wish is that there had been reporters from The Daily Mail and The Telegraph to see it.

10

| Tuesday 1 March, 2016

Brexit: From a Greek Perspective

How Britain can learn from the Greek referendum on their relationship with Europe

FIRST THING’S FIRST, please do not misinterpret the last major referendum held in the EU, namely the Greek one. The result should not be seen as a 63% vote for leaving the Euro or the EU, but rather as a reactive rebellious ‘No’ vote for the Juncker proposal during the negotiations. Fuelled by a need to reject the establishment, the media and the rest of the world’s opinion, the Greek majority at the time voted for an unexplained ‘No’.

This was after a record matching campaign race in terms of duration (one week) and, I repeat, with extremely little consciousness and understanding of the meaning of the referendum. The only man that knew the purpose of this referendum was the Greek PM, Mr Tsipras. One can come to this conclusion because, at first sight, he ignored the majority vote and signed a bailout agreement only days after the referendum.

But what if this referendum was not on the issue of Greece signing its third bailout agreement? Tsipras claims it was simply a message to Europe that his negotiations must be tougher. He wanted to convince the Europeans that he has the backing of his electorate to not automatically accept proposals coming from either European institutions

or the IMF. So, to be clear, Greece was, is and will be a pro-EU nation, and there are various reasons for that. That is why, as a proud European and Greek, I find it hard to understand the prevalent sentiment in the UK at the moment, or more precisely the recent poll results which put the ‘Leave’ vote as the favourable choice.

Maybe the British are not as cynical as the Greeks. Greeks see the EU from the point of view of their self-interest. And by selfinterest, I am not referring to classic anti-Greek propaganda coming from Northern European media outlets during the high times of the crisis. Greeks did not join the EU for its benefits to the agricultural sector and the partially subsidised infrastructure projects that come with the membership. Only last year did Greece make use of 99% of European funds available for a given year. Previous governments, mainly due to organisational issues, could never absorb the full sum of benefits and subsidies before. Still, disregarding the governmental incompetence over the past decades, not all Greeks grow olives and little do they really care about the modernity of their school facilities.

So if not for its abuse, what is the reasoning behind Greek Europeanism? Is it implicit nationalism, as Greeks invent the word “Europe” and thus believe that the EU is their intellectual property?

My belief is that it is the opposite. Greeks are not overconfident, but underconfident in their nation’s abilities. Their experience of divisive and incompetent politics before and after the military junta has had a lasting impact on the trust they offer to their elected rulers. For us Greeks, the EU is an opportunity for an external check and balance of the executive and legislative, even the judiciary and the media. Greeks, and similarly other countries in Eastern Europe, want a knowledgeable and respectful supervising body that will modernise the state and its functions and guarantee its stability, security and equity. Such a supervisor would not be a dictator, but a conditional provider of aid; not only aid in goods or cash, but more importantly in intangible things such as regulation.

In this regard, I return to the British EU issue. The British have not suffered from a junta, nor have they experienced political incompetence and corruption of such a large scale as the Greeks have. Thus, it is natural for them to believe that they don’t need any external help, whether in material infrastructure or state infrastructure. Hundreds of years of the British Empire and world domination have created a notion of British self-sufficiency when it comes to those matters.

“Do we really need the bureaucrats in Brussels whom we pay very expensively?” Rhetorical questions,

such as the one above, are repeatedly raised by ‘Leave’ campaigners, as if the UK has either reached a state of perfection or will soon do so if it leaves the Union.

Yet, Britain is far from perfect and is expected to become much worse if it leaves, a conclusion we may confidently deduce for a variety of aspects of this once dominant country. The UK suffers from a productivity gap that the EU could help with, either through the free movement of labour, or in the best case scenario, through a partially subsidised or loaned nation-wide infrastructure project.

Yes Brits, I am claiming that if needed and justified, the UK government could receive EU grants.

Currently, the Germans and the French would not be in the mood for solidarity, but as the Eurozone recovers economically and politically, an EU funded infrastructure project (not any proclaimed People’s QE) could become a possibility. For a country with such a serious long-term growth issue such as the UK, this ought to be top of Cam-

eron’s agenda, rather than avoiding paying unemployment benefits to Polish immigrants, who have proven to be net contributors to British tax revenues. Another aspect of imperfection is the country’s state infrastructure, specifically financial regulation. The global financial crisis exposed the UK regulatory weaknesses and need for a foreign regulatory intervention to protect both European and UK interests.

Regulation imported from Brussels should be seen as a chance for a third party to set the rules for the risk-prone finance industry which became a national burden from a national hero in a matter of days in 2008. With regards to the operation of this industry, politicians have displayed blindness, not selfsufficiency. So yes Brits, I am claiming that Brussels is underregulating, not overregulating.

Therefore, the Greek case of European dependency can apply to the British case of UK-EU relations. The EU is a vote for modesty above all.

Credit: The Commentator

Aris Grivokostopoulos Undergraduate Student

Pro-Palestinian is Not Anti-Semitism

The problems with labelling pro-Palestinian campaigns as inherently anti-Semitic Muhummed Cassidy Undergraduate Student THE ALLEGATION OF ANTISemitism has been thrown around so as to silence any legitimate criticism of the Israeli Government’s continued breaches of international law. There have been endless claims that the very nature of pro-Palestinian campaigns have anti-Semitism at the root of their movements.

It is not clear exactly on what grounds these allegations are based. I have been able to identify two arguments. Firstly, it has been suggested by some that questioning the actions of the Israeli Government is anti-Semitic because it singles out the only Jewish state in the world. Secondly, others say that it is anti-Semitic because antiZionism slips, inevitably, into antiSemitism.

I will address both these argument, starting with the latter.

Ironically, the latter claim is itself clearly anti-Semitic as it appears to conflate the illegitimate aims of Zionist terrorism and ethnic cleansing with Jewish people. Saying that criticism of Zionist terror-

ism is prejudiced against Jews, is to say that being Jewish equates to being a Zionist.

Whereas Jewish societies and clubs used to host Israeli speakers or hold Israeli events, now many seek to distance themselves from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and in particular the Zionist terrorism and ethnic cleansing that takes place at the hands of the Israeli Government. Hence why at LSE, for example, the Israeli and Jewish societies are separate bodies.

Moreover, some of the most vocal critics of the Israeli Government and illegitimate Zionist causes have come from Jewish activists, such as the ‘Jewish Voice for Peace’, which is a campaign group describing itself as ‘among the many American Jews who say to the U.S. and Israeli Governments: Not in our names’.

As noted above, the second ground is that questioning the actions of the Israeli Government is anti-Semitic because it singles out Israel - the only Jewish state in the world. This argument relies on the suggestion that there is a ‘hypocrisy’ in pointing to the illegitimate actions of the Israeli government.

For example, responding to the allegation that the University of

Oxford Labour Club is anti-Semitic because it endorsed the Israeli Apartheid Week, one Facebook user suggested that this was antiSemitic because the Labour Club ‘condemns Israel but when was the last time it held an apartheid week for those suffering in Syria, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Nigeria... people who are actually dying by the thousands?’

The same user further went on, in another post, to ask why ‘with so much atrocities being committed across the world in the name of Islam are you protesting against a small state?’

Similarly, another Facebook user commented that the action was anti-Semitic because ‘it wasn’t focusing on any other issue in the world’ and ‘so it’s holding Israel to a different standard to any other country’. Another Facebook user commented, ‘The fact that so many other people around the world choose to focus on criticising Israel and ignoring other crimes against humanity is anti-Semitism’.

Applying this argument, in June last year, the country’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu criticised the UK’s National Union

of Students (NUS) for boycotting Israel – arguing that they should condemn ISIS instead.

It is hard to know where to begin when discrediting such (illinformed) arguments. Perhaps the most suitable place to begin would be to point out the obvious: that the international community does, in the majority of cases, condemn actions of all oppressors. It does not single out the atrocities committed by the Israeli Government.

For example, despite Netanyahu comments the NUS had already passed a policy condemning ISIS, in December 2014.

When the actions of Israel are condemned there is no hypocrisy as those condemning do not in any way attempt to conceal other world issues.

In any case, for the purpose of following the ill-informed argument let us, for a moment, ignore the fact that the international community does in fact condemn oppressors other than Israel. Essentially, what the argument holds is that, because there are many other atrocities across the world, the atrocities committed by the Israeli Government should not matter to us. This is a very dangerous way to

think. It is also a very illogical way to think, as it would mean that we are unable to deal with any issue, because there will always be other issues to deal with, too.

Imagine if this argument was applied during the Second World War, where the Nazis persecuted Jews. When people spoke out against this injustice, imagine if individuals turned around and applied this argument. That is, imagine that opponents of the Nazi’s treatment of Jews were attacked and silenced simply for not protesting against other world issues.

However, what is most scandalous is that, as with the first argument, this argument is itself guilty of what it accuses pro-Palestinian activists. That is, the only hypocrisy present is Israel’s attempts to silence legitimate criticism, and demands to be singled out by the international community for impunity and protection against its otherwise illegal actions. Human rights activists are always against racism and oppression in all its forms; this must include the policies of the current Israeli Government. Israel wants to be an aggressor while enjoying status of a victim.

Comment | 11

Quantified Selves: Our Days Are Numbered How social technologies quantify the previously intangible aspects of our lives Julia Slupska Undergraduate Student SOMETIMES, AT DEBATE competitions, the ‘tab’ (a ranking with the day’s team and speaker score) is released online before everyone leaves the pub. Conversations peter out as debaters huddle around smartphones, analysing their performance in each round: 70, 74, 75, 63 (ouch), 71. A telepathy device, or a keen sense for gossip, would allow you to read thousands of petty rivalries and entrenched jealousies into those numbers: me resenting you, you worried about how much he outspoke you, him worried about how they’re getting better recently, all interlaced with sufficient amounts of smugness to make it all worth it. It’s often frustrated me how much easier it is to remember scores – just numbers that we all agree are assigned fairly arbitrarily – than compelling arguments or new ways of thinking.

Our brain clings to numbers for easy memorability and comparison: years later you can still bitterly remember the low score you got when you thought you were waxing eloquent about the power of discourse.

Scores and rankings are intrinsic to organised competitions, but ICTs are making them pos-

sible in new and strange areas: see this advice column on “The Secret Language of Girls on Instagram” which outlines how adolescent girls have repurposed the app into “a barometer for popularity, friendship status and self-worth.” Presumably written for parents desperately trying to figure out what ‘TBH, ILYSM’ means, the author explains that for anxious adolescents, likes are “a public, tangible, reassuring statement of a girl’s social status.”

This exists in the context of parental panic over how social media leads teenagers to constant competition and anxiety, not to mention darker corners of Instagram like #thinspiration (now banned) and the more socially acceptable #fitspiration, where you get likes for pictures evidencing dieting or exercise. Reading this article as a childless 20-year-old, this seemed neither mystifying nor exclusive to the tail-end of Millennials. In fact, the way adolescents use Instagram to approximate their popularity seems identical to the minute comparisons we make on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. (After all, who among us doesn’t check our significant other’s exs’ profile pictures to make sure they don’t have more likes than ours?)

In fact, it’s misleading to limit this behaviour to Millennials. At a meeting with a professor a few

weeks ago, an innocuous question about Google Scholar brought up a torrent of dark memories: while students use Scholar as a fantastically useful search engine and citation machine, my professors knew it only as a mighty, and utterly non transparent, ranking algorithm. A quick search will lead you the top international relations or, say, physics scholars in the world. Academics apparently engage in bitter controversy over how the algorithm determines the highest ranked authors and journals; it seems to be focused primarily on citations (researchers even went through the trouble to reverse-engineer the entire algorithm) but Google explains that it “aims to rank documents the way researchers do, weighing the full text of each document.” My professor angrily described “citation circles” where academics are suspected of exclusively citing each other in order to increase their rankings. The algorithm seems to drive renowned academics to mimic the habits of tweens on Instagram.

Such quantification, and the competition enmeshed in it, has been widely discussed in relation to the “quantified self,” or the use of wearable technologies to record sleeping patterns, calorie intake, moods and steps in order to improve health. Many predict this to be the future of healthcare, and

tens of thousands around the world are already sharing information like this with each other online. More controversially, it has been taken up eagerly by corporations: one of my mother’s former employers distributed FitBits to all of its employees, promising that 10,000 steps a year would lead to a discount in insurance. The scheme also included an optional competitive element: a website where you could compare your steps to your boss or CEO. There were rumours in the office that the less high-minded competitors were running their FitBits through the washing machine to get extra steps. When my mother went on walks, she would talk (albeit jokingly) not about how nice walks are, or even how good for fitness they are, but about how she needs to hold her own on said website.

She reminded me of myself, after I publish a blog, obsessively checking Wordpress’s analytics to see how many people have read each post, where they came from, which links they clicked.

Instagram likes, Google Scholar’s algorithm, Wordpress updates and FitBit all seem to be a part of the same phenomenon: a process by which social information technology allows us to quantify previously intangible elements of human existence (health, popularity, academic merit) and compare it with

others’ in real time. This can be an excellent motivator, gamifying your mental or physical exercise, but it can also be a deceptive, oversimplified metric: just as counting calories does not make a healthy diet, h-indexes cannot actually convey all of what we mean by academic merit.

Furthermore, real-time social metrics have the tendency to launch you into constant, pointless competition. Any scoreboard is likely to weigh down the self esteem of those on the lower end. The rest, meanwhile, must think about it more often as they check the scoreboard to see if anything’s changed.

We may very well need motivation to exercise, but I struggle to believe we need help in being competitive on Facebook or in academia (or for that matter, at debate competitions). Rankings and scoreboards with our achievements on them are perversely thrilling, or at least enthralling, even when they make us unhappy. Since we return to them, and sometimes even organise our lives around getting extra likes or steps or citations, software developers are likely to keep inventing new ways we can measure our life, and preferably link it up to our social media profiles.

Even if you don’t particularly mind quantification, it seems wise to pay attention to its creeping into our everyday existence.

The Meaning of Just Banter

Using banter as an excuse only proves that the activity was not, in fact, just banter Bobby Gard-Storry Undergraduate Student IF YOU NEED TO JUSTIFY an act as ‘a bit of banter’, then it wasn’t. Not because of the act itself, but because of the justification. If it truly was the type of act that had been known as ‘banter’ for centuries before ‘lads’ came along, then no justification would ever be necessary because, while offence might be something taken not given, banter (real banter, good banter, just banter, if you will) is something shared.

The word itself is mud with all card-carrying members of the modern, feminist, liberal consensus at the LSE these days, and not without good reason. The ‘antiladdism’ crusade is in full swing, and I for one am not writing to oppose it, but rather to try and save an innocent term from being slaughtered on the battlefields of progressiveness alongside its captors. The word itself might have recently been permanently crippled as it was trampled into the bloody mire of its new, cringe-worthy, indiscriminately broad, pejorative meaning, but the phenomena the term originally refers to needs saving from perpetual ignominy.

It’s important here to distin-

guish between two very different forms of social interaction. Today, in general conversation, we call both ‘banter’, but they should be rightly recognised as two very different activities. Different conceptually, and different in terms of their defensibility. To avoid confusion as much as possible, we’ll give them different names. One, we will call Bantaah! The other, Craic.

That second is pronounced ‘Crack’, and it’s a word with an interesting history, having originally come from the English ‘Crack’, then been borrowed by the Irish, gaelicised to ‘Craic’, and promptly borrowed back. It’s a term currently less often heard in the halls of our toffiest and most Bullingdonish public schools than banter, so I hope to wield it with impunity as the alternative to bantaah.

To cut to the core of the issue, bantaah lacks emotional reciprocity, while good craic does not. Allow me to illustrate. Imagine a hypothetical male sports club at a hypothetical university, publishing, for example, a pamphlet, leaflet or other item of ephemera, and including in it a ‘banterous’ series of references to members of the opposite sex etc. This cannot possibly qualify as craic, it merely qualifies as being a di... being a, uh ‘rude person’. Why? Because it

lacks what I’ll dub the holy trinity of craic: Comeback, Equality and Community.

Firstly; comeback. Good craic is, by nature, face-to-face, and person-to-person. It is a form of interaction that’s fast paced, and built around the constant ping-pong of commentary between participants.

As such, it’s essential that there is an instant and open chance for a witty riposte; a comeback.

Secondly; equality. Good craic is also, crucially, built on the premise that the shots fired and lines of ordinary politeness apparently transgressed are mere flotsam and jetsam floating on a sea of mutual respect. The reason why one friend can, frankly, seem to verbally abuse another, is because both understand and accept that it is a joke, even if the joke is recurring, crass and/or particularly cutting.

Thirdly; community. The joke is made at the expense of another person who is within the same group, rather than an unwilling victim. In other words, the person making the joke must be emotionally tied to the person who’s the apparent butt of the joke. There can be no good craic aimed at someone who does not themselves feel part of a shared group, even if that group is loosely bound or temporary.

The common thread linking the

three conditions together is a crucial degree of emotional reciprocity between the participants, and it is exactly this sense of reciprocity that lies at the heart of all manner of strong, healthy, informal, social interactions.

Sadly for those of us who might have once made use of the word banter, ‘lads’ (the word ‘lad’ could also be given the same treatment I have doled out here) have taken it hostage, and applied it to all manner of activities they see as hilariously funny, while routinely and flagrantly transgressing the three conditions, often all at once. There can be no good craic aimed at one unwilling individual by a mob of others, and there can be no good craic distributed in a leaflet.

Sometimes of course, we might misjudge the situation, and insult where we intended to amuse. In these circumstances, there is nothing more we can do than apologise.

We may naturally think to proffer the explanation that we were trying to have a bit of craic, but the miss-step is no less inappropriate because it was unintended. It’s also important to recognise that, just as some people don’t appreciate slapstick comedy or like confrontational debating, so too do some people recoil from banter- even when it is of the ‘good craic’ kind. It would

be wholly unfair and unnecessary, let alone futile, to try and convince them they’re somehow wrong, especially given the particularly abrasive and confident rapid fire style often seen in this kind of conversation. Their objection ought to be respected: they must be left alone by anybody who purports to be polite in even the most minimal sense. All of this clearly just serves to highlight the importance of being sensitive to the context of our interactions, which is a very basic social skill.

Fortunately for most of us, we intuitively understand all of this without having to think about it.

The interplay of emotions and understandings is subtle and amorphous, but part of the value of a beautiful friendship, and a lighthearted conversation, is that these things need not be spelled out as painstakingly as I’m doing here.

The conditions are implicit, but no less true because of it. The circumstances ripe for ‘a bit of banter’- in the good craic sense- are generally pretty clear, and those times when it is absolutely to be left at the door are glaringly apparent. Those who transgress the etiquette of craic do so at their social peril; LSE Rugger buggers be warned. Uh, I mean, hypothetical sports clubs at hypothetical universities be warned...

12| Tuesday 1 March, 2016

Welcome To The Jungle: There is a rythm to daily life at the Calais migrant camp--for migrants Paula Grabosch Undergraduate Student

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

Think

huge, muddy wasTeland.

Now imagine at least 6,000 people and the rubbish that comes with them. Add some sporadic wooden huts and ripped, sagging tents and voilà: Welcome to the Calais migrant camp, better known as the “Jungle.”

The way into the Jungle passes by the entrance to the Eurotunnel. I was born after the fall of the Berlin Wall, but that’s the comparison I made to myself when I first saw it.

Gigantic, metre-high fences with barbed wire on top separating two different worlds. Every couple of metres armed police officers patrolled the outside of the fence.

East Germans struggled to come up with creative ways of defeating the wall—tunnels, jerry-rigged ziplines from the upper floors of nearby buildings.

Ever since the Eurotunnel

“Welcome to the

Features

Jungle, Europe’s migrant heart of darkness.”

became almost impossible to access for refugees, many have started employing similar tactics in a desperate attempt to reach the UK. Some try to cling to lorries on the motorway, one man was caught attempting to walk (Link).

Soon after, the road stops and mud takes over, and then directly under a highway bridge the camp begins. At the top of a little hill that leads to the bridge there are a couple of stern-faced, police officers overlooking the camp, armed with teargas. On the underside of the overpass is the

famous Banksy graffiti of son-ofan-immigrant turned-billionaire Steve Jobs. Painted there, waiting, directly beneath the officers and their teargas. * Care4Calais has only exisTed for a few months. In August, Clare Moseley came away from reading about the refugee crisis (and the negative reactions it was spurring) with the desire to do something positive for the few thousand in Calais. Finding no charity on the ground that she could donate to, she decided to take matters into her own hands and drove from the UK to Calais, car laden with donations.

Today, aided by an ever-shifting small number of volunteers, it’s become her full-time job.

Headquarters is about twenty minutes away from the camp itself, in a small yard with two massive warehouses. One warehouse is for sorting donations, the other for storing them before they are distributed in the camp. The truth about donations is that a good chunk of what people donate is haphazard, and another chunk is crap. And so the warehouses sort through a lot of useless crap.

Hundreds of pairs of half broken

or inappropriate shoes. Shoes with holes, or even high heels—because those are exactly what refugees are looking for, stilettos to wear while tromping through the mud.

Every day, vans leave the charity’s two giant warehouses that sort and store donations, and soon after, pass in of this fence and into the heart of European migrant darkness. The people living in this darkness come mostly from war-torn countries like Syria, Afghanistan, Eritrea, Somalia, Sudan, Libya and Iraq.

They, the migrants, generate backlash from from the residents of Calais—but so do the volunteers.

Since the residents believe that by helping the refugees even more will be attracted to the camp, they strongly object to the idea of giving out donations, even likening those that do to human traffickers.

The attitude is clearly mirrored in the results of the French regional elections in December 2015, where the far-right Front National was able to secure 49% of the votes for the region of Nord-pas de CalaisPicardie, in which the refugee camp is located.

After being confronted with countless heart-wrenching reports

“If I had to give up life as I know it and ended up in this jungle, wouldn’t I be picky too?” on the refugee crisis on a daily basis, my decision to go to Calais had come fairly naturally. I had never seen a slum in person, but I knew I wanted to do some handson work to help, as well as confront myself with the realities of the current situation. What better place to start than the slum in the heart of Europe that is the refugee camp of Calais? *

Features | 13

Europe’s Heart Of Darkness and volunteers alike. Paula Grabosch investigates and brings back their stories.

All I could see through the window of a Care4Calais van, all I could see were run-down huts consisting mainly of plastic tarp, held together with wooden planks.

They were crammed together, only centimetres apart. A little Afghan flag was dangling from one of them, right beneath the sign that read Café Kabul. Men were gathering in front, waiting to squeeze into the tiny makeshift “restaurant.” We rolled further into the camp, passing more and more broken tents, piles of rubbish and the occasional sink instalments, where people were huddled in the wind, washing themselves with ice-cold water.

No one paid much attention to us driving through. For some reason I had expected people to be curious, maybe even try to stop us. I realised that cars drove in and out all day and the people were used to it by now. Many stayed here for many months, maybe years. Why was I expecting them to just sit around waiting for volunteers to come in? Just like Café Kabul, people had come up with other small businesses, forms of entertainment and a daily routine. Johnny—the Care4Calais volunteer driving the van--told us that they even had a theatre and put on performances on some nights. Miming, since they all spoke different languages.

Eventually, we came to a stop on a sort of clearing amidst more gloomy tents. Right in front of me there was another hut made of plastic tarp and wood. This one was different from the others though, relatively big and with a proud cross on top; the church.

The French government, responding to domestic and international criticism, has decided to start replacing the slum at Calais with containers—enough for 1500 people to live in. A lot of the inhabitants of the Jungle don’t want to move there; the government will take fingerprints and palm scans, which they fear

will legally tie them to France.

In late January, the government sent bulldozers in to destroy large parts of the camp. I have no idea of Café Kabul is still there. The church—and the mosque—were among the first buildings to be bulldozed.

As we got out of the car a large group of refugees had already begun gathering around us. Care4Calais gets a lot of different types of donations, but they distribute one type of item at a time--jumpers, trousers, shoes, food etc. Back at the warehouses, volunteers sort into boxes according to size to ensure a quick and effective distribution to the refugees once in the camp.

Each person gets a choice of three items in their size and can pick one. Maria, one of the volunteers, explained to us that this was designed to make it seem more like a shopping atmosphere and to treat the people like customers, rather than creating the feeling that people have to take what they can get.

“Many don’t want to move to the new containerhousing; the government will take fingerprints and palm scans, which they fear will legally tie them to France.”

Since we had jumpers, the distribution was fairly smooth.

No nightmare of size-matching pairs of shoes, but even then it still took an hour: Two inside the van, presenting the jumpers to one customer at a time, two on each side of the van doors, making a human fence to control the flow of people, and the enormous Maurice filling in as an effective bouncer.

Simple in theory, but making a huge group of people that speaks various languages and has varying familiarity with the idea of lines?

Not so much.

Despite the lack of English, everyone knew that word at least.

Presumably having been at the Jungle for a while, they also all knew how distribution worked: If the line was too pushy, the distribution would stop and the volunteers would leave. To avoid that, whenever someone cut the line, the others in line would call “Line, Line!” pointing at whoever cut in. Maurice would then go and remove that person from the line; easier said than done. Each time they would start an argument, claiming they had been standing there since the beginning, when the opposite was obviously the case.

And here’s the thing about line jumping, it doesn’t just make distribution so much more disorganized, it can also cause tension among the migrants themselves. Since about 90% of the inhabitants are young men, from various different backgrounds, there is a lot of potential for conflict. That there usually isn’t is a testament to Care4Calais, and Maurice in particular.

If the ‘choice-based distribution’ model is innovative in theory, then in practice it can also make people picky. Everyone wanted to have hoodies, no one wanted anything colourful and no one wanted longer jumpers, and a choice of three was never enough, even though since most of the jumpers were in top condition and

He asked if he could get a black jumper, before adding, ‘Like my destiny.’

It was meant to be a joke and he was half-grinning, but it was said sadly, too.” from good brands. Quite a few people actually left without taking anything if there was nothing that they liked among their choice of three.

I kept on asking myself why they didn’t want to take the longer jumpers, since these would keep more of their body warm. Initially, I was shocked by how ‘picky’ they were. I hated myself for thinking can’t you be grateful for what you’re getting?, but couldn’t help it. The more I thought about it though, I realised that most of them hadn’t come from nothing.

In fact, to even reach Calais they needed a minimum of a couple of thousand euros. It made me realise even more how horrible this situation must be. If I had to give up life as I know it and ended up in this jungle, wouldn’t I be picky too? * WhIle I WAs busy securIng the sides of the van, some of the men from the camp took my hand and joined me in extending the line. At first it made me a bit

uncomfortable. I could tell that some of them were doing it as sort of dare, with their friends watching and grinning in the background. But I just went along with it and smiled. If it was entertaining to them, I was happy to do it.

Others were genuinely helpful, like a young man from Eritrea took my hand during the distribution and waited with me for the full hour, smiling at me warmly throughout. Of course he knew that if he helped, a jumper would be saved for him at the end. Nonetheless, he would have been twice as fast if he had just queued up, meaning he genuinely wanted to help.

At one point, I noticed a man who was just standing behind me, watching. I asked him if he wanted a jumper. “No, I only want UK,” he replied. It was that sentence that made me think I would cry for the first time that day. Instead I forced myself to laugh and replied that a jumper would have to do for now. As he laughed along, I came to see that meeting the refugees on a level playing field was the only thing I could do. Pity, sometimes, is a selfish emotion, and laughter at the heart of solidarity.

Just before we were about to leave, Maria, another volunteer who was handing out jumpers, paused to chat with a young, good-looking Syrian guy, who was maybe in his early twenties and seemed to speak fluent English.

He asked if he could get a black jumper, before adding, “Like my destiny.” It was meant to be a joke and he was half-grinning as he said it, half sad, too.

Maria handed him a pink jumper. “Now it’s rosy,” she said.

All Photo Credits: malachybrowne/Flickr

14

| Tuesday 1 March, 2016

The Fascinating discovery of Einstein’s Gravitational Waves Explaining gravitational waves, their discovery, and its significance for scientific research Sam Earle Postgraduate student ON THE 11TH OF February, the LIGO team announced to the world the great discovery of gravitational waves found by the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory, which was created to do this. For those that do not know much about Einstein’s theory and gravitational waves, this article intends to answer the questions of what are gravitational waves? How were they discovered? And why are they such an important discovery?

So What are gravitational waves? Einstein’s theory, which he developed from 1907 to 1915, says that the force of gravity is emitted via waves. This countered Newton’s gravitational theory which saw gravity as a simple force. The easiest way to understand this is to picture the universe working around a sort of “gravitational fabric”, as shown

Diagram credit: Capucine Cogné

in Diagram 1, in which objects, or in this case planets naturally fall into the trough of the wave.

This is all linked to the idea of space-time, which describes the universe as four dimensional.

The gravitational waves that exist in the universe were created by the Big Bang and the theory suggests that all objects, from the Sun, to the Earth, to black holes emit gravitational waves. Thus, when gravitational waves pass through us, or the Earth, we compress and contract by an extremely tiny amount that cannot be detected. Many believe that there is more to it than what scientists have discovered and theorised so far, but maybe this recent discovery is a step towards this.

How were gravitational waves discovered in September 2015?

The observatory at Livingston consists of two 4 kilometre long L-shaped interferometers. Laser light is split into two beams from the corner of the L. The laser

light travel back and forth down the arms (which are kept under a near-perfect vacuum) and, by placing mirrors at both ends of the arms, the beams are used to monitor the distance between the emitter and the end of the arms. According to Einstein’s theory, the distance observed will change by an infinitesimal amount when a gravitational wave passes by the detector.

This is done fairly simply: a beam of laser light is continually shone. The laser light is an electromagnetic wave, travelling at the speed of light.

Mirrors at each end of the arms inverse the wave when it hits it, sending it back to the corner of the “L”. This means that along the tube- if there were no interference whatsoever- the trough of the reflected wave would meet with the peak of the original wave, leading to destructive interference.

Therefore, no wave is detected (or barely any), as shown by Diagram 2.

When gravitational waves pass through the LIGO, one

arm compresses and the other contracts and vice versa until the gravitational waves have passed through it. When this is the case, the interference patterns change and so a wave can be detected.

The compression and contraction is only by a very small distance: when gravitational waves interfere with the beams, a change in the lengths of the arms smaller than one-ten-thousandth the diameter of a proton (10-15) can be detected.

“The concrete evidence of gravitational waves is thus an assurance that modern science’s foundations are in fact solid.”

The original LIGO (funding approved in 1992) was not able to detect this minimal change, but the new Advanced LIGO with enhanced capabilities was able to, leading to the discovery of gravitational waves during its first observation run. These enhanced capabilities were mainly due to the increasing of the sensitivity of the instruments used compared to the first generation LIGO detectors, which also enabled a large increase in the volume of the universe probed.

The gravitational waves that were detected in September 2015 are believed to have come from the merging of two black holes.

Black holes release very strong gravitational waves (see Diagram 3). Scientists estimate these two black holes as being about 29 and 36 times the mass of the sun (i.e. enormous!), and that the event took place 1.3 billion years ago. Even more mindblowing than this is that whilst these black holes were merging with each other, around 3 times the mass of the sun was being converted into gravitational waves in a fraction of a second (E=mc2).

So, why this matters to us and how does it impact our everyday life in any way?

Why is this such an significant discovery? A few years ago (2011), in Switzerland, neutrinos were fired at the Alps and were subsequently recorded to have travelled faster than the speed of light. This completely

undermined Einstein’s theory that is founded on the concept that what travels the fastest in the universe is light and that everything is hence relative to it. What happened? It was an error. So many things could have gone wrong, but the finding shook scientists worldwide as Einstein’s theory, which so many modern scientific findings are based on, was being doubted.

The concrete evidence of gravitational waves is thus an assurance that modern science’s foundations are in fact solid. You might feel that this does not really matter to you, however so many things we use day to day rely on modern science and sometimes even more directly Einstein’s theory. A key example of this is GPS. The satellites have to take relativistic effects into account.

General Relativity predicts that time will appear to run slower under stronger gravitational pull (gravitational waves). Therefore, the clocks on board the satellites should run faster than one on Earth. This has to be taken into account so that your SatNav functions properly!

Another examples of the importance of the gravitational waves and

“Some scientists have spent over 35 years working on this project, and it has finally paid off.

This discovery is BIG, and will hopefully lead to more scientific development in the future.” generally, the relativity theory is electromagnets, which are used in most of our electricity transmitters.

Some scientists have spent over 35 years working on this project, and it has finally paid off.

This discovery is BIG, and will hopefully lead to more scientific development in the future.

Although Kip Thorne (consultant for Interstellar) has said that we are still far from time travel, this has taken us one step further to understanding our Universe.

Features | 15

On the ‘Neoliberal Consensus’: Are There No Alternatives?

Challenging the poverty of ideas that besets the economic and political status quo Sam Earle Postgraduate student OVER EIGHTY YEARS AGO, the Economist John Maynard Keynes predicted that, by 2030, the prosperity of society would be such that we would all be working a leisurely three-day, fifteen-hour week. Today, and despite the predicted rise in riches, there is precious little movement towards such a goal. Somehow, in spite of so much technological innovation, our immense national wealth, and the labours of our predecessors, society’s working norms remain etched in stone.

It seems that Keynes overestimated the power – or the desire – of government to tame the logic of capitalism, which will never want people to work less, but only ever for less and longer. For capitalism, the simplest resolution of this logic – as most supermarkets and tube stations show – is replacing workers with machines; machines won’t complain, fatigue or need breaks.

The elimination of banal jobs by machines could, and should, be positive – a small step on the way to Keynes’ prediction of a threeday week. But as long as they are introduced without thinking of new ways of organising society, they will, at best, change nothing.

At worst, they’ll only increase unemployment. Indeed, a study

by Deloitte and the University of Oxford in 2014 found that over a third of workers risk losing their jobs to digital automation over the next twenty years.

The three-day week certainly feels very far away. After all, many are struggling to hold on to their weekend. At present, junior doctors are fighting against the government’s new plan to increase their “normal” working week to include Saturday; retail workers are protesting the government’s ambition to relax Sunday trading laws, making the day that many saw as the sole chance to see Photo credit: Rohan Francis

their family a day like any other – a day of work. Meanwhile, as highlighted by a recent front page of the Telegraph, teachers have been warned by one expert to begin preparing schoolchildren for work until the ripe old age of one hundred.

In and of themselves, dreams of a seven-day, fully-functioning

“The elimination of banal jobs by machines could, and should, be positive [...].

But as long as they are introduced without thinking of new ways of organising society, they will, at best, change nothing. At worst, they’ll only increase NHS, and of a future in which shops are open as usual on Sundays, are innocent enough. But when they are implemented within the pattern that has dominated the past forty years, in which ever greater services are expected at ever cheaper prices, they become emblematic of what is wrong.

The government’s insistence on moving forward with this legislation, ignoring the vociferous

objections of the workers on whom it will rely, illustrates a culture in which the insatiable expectations of consumers always trump the claims of workers.

This isn’t to say that a balance can’t be struck – but to do so we need to think differently about such policies. Take the extension of Sunday trading laws. A new analysis claims that, if these plans go ahead, the economy will receive a £1.4bn boost. But who will see that money? John Coyne, the Chief Executive of the British Council of Shopping Centres, argues that this move will “improve consumer choice” and help “level the playing field between traditional bricks-and-mortar stores on the high street and online retail giants like Amazon.” Out of all the uneven playing fields that make up our society, we might ask whether this one, on which high-street giants like Topshop and Primark compete with online giants like Amazon and Ebay, is really a priority. But for the likes of John Coyne, it seems to be so.

If we are to level it, brokering a happier compromise between those who will now have to work on Sunday, and those businesses which, under the guise of meeting consumer demand, are set to gain so much from their labour, should be easily within society’ grasp. It’s not going to change the world but, for example, why couldn’t the government arrange that some of the new £1.4bn in revenue go towards paying workers more for Sunday shifts.

In this situation, consumers would have the opportunity to shop on Sundays, the retail stores would make the profit they crave, and working on Sunday would become a more appealing prospect as well.

Unless a policy of this kind is adopted – and there are no doubt better ones – that £1.4bn will be just one more remote statistic for the vast majority of people.

The fact that even such a tame idea – paying people more for

working on a Sunday – seems so unrealisable makes it all the more depressing. When it comes to the economy, the echo of Thatcher’s famous line, that ‘There is No Alternative’, can be heard in all that the government says. When Ed Miliband suggested before the previous election something as simple as a freeze on energy

“for a political system that prides itself on openness to different perspectives, there is a striking poverty of ideas.

Inequality soars and economies crash; nothing changes.” prices – which, it should be added, are now the highest in Europe – he was ridiculed.

“If something is too good to be true,” Cameron and Clegg wrote upliftingly in the Sun, “it usually is.”

Sorry chaps, they may as well say, cheaper energy prices is a dream too far. Likewise, we finally have a leading politician who at least challenges the neoliberal consensus, but rather than having his ideas engaged with, he is silenced as a “threat to national security.” This is the British political conformist-consensus machine in action. There is No Alternative.

Indeed, for a political system that prides itself on openness to different perspectives, there is a striking poverty of ideas.

Inequality soars and economies

crash; nothing changes.

Somehow, the financial crisis of 2008 was turned into a victory for free-market economics. But surely it is time for change. In Sweden, some companies are experimenting with a six-hour working day. In France, there is a growing movement towards the provision of a basic income.

This powerful idea would see all citizens, regardless of class, be given a set amount of money per year. Along with cleaning up the Bureaucracy that plagues our welfare state and saving on administration costs, this would ensure a high-level of social security for everyone and relax the burden of work that many feel. This policy is being seriously discussed in the French assembly.

In Britain, Caroline Lucas and Paul Mason are championing the cause, but the establishment is silent. At the very least, with job insecurity set to rise further and homelessness having increased by a third in the last year alone, a basic income calls for serious research and consideration.

Ideas like the basic income rub against the grain and may strike some as fanciful. If this is so, it is a reflection not of the policy but of our suffocated politics. It’s worth remembering that there will have been a time when the idea of a National Health Service, free at the point of use, was also seen as a utopian dream. Now the right to free health care seems to most Brits as self-evident.

When recently pressed on his treatment of the NHS in the House of Commons, Cameron sniped at Corbyn: ‘put on a proper suit, do up your tie and sing the national anthem’. In other words, get in line. But if this is how politics is done, and if that means more of the same, then maybe we shouldn’t put on proper suits, do up our ties, or sing the national anthem. There are alternatives.

Photo credit: Harry Metcalfe

16| Tuesday February 01, 2016

In Conversation with Yanis Varou As Ian Parker in The New Yorker wryly puts it, Varoufakis, then a “professor with a side LAST SUNDAY, the LSE career in online punditry”, hosted a panel discussion commenced his role in on, “Good Europe: what the Greek debt crisis as is the purpose of the a political neophyte who, European Union in the “launched a ten-day 21st century?” which election campaign whose was held at the Sheikh sole expense was the cost Zayed Theatre.

The of gas for his motorcycle.” panelists included Yanis But there doesn’t appear Varoufakis, former Syriza to be anyone who is Finance Minister for more au courant of this Greece; Caroline Lucas, than Yanis himself, as MP for Brighton Pavilion even his Twitter bio (@ and former Leader of the yanisvaroufakis) reads, Green Party; Zoe Williams, “Economics professor, Guardian journalist and quietly writing obscure writer, and was chaired by academic texts for years, Mary Kaldor, Professor until thrust onto the public of Global Governance at LSE. The event aimed to explore the purpose of the EU in the 21st century, by discussing how it can meet the demands for social justice, democracy and sustainability as part of the vision for a “good” Europe.

Following the discussion, I was able to speak briefly with Varoufakis about his plans to reform the EU with DiEM25, his Marxist philosophy, and of course, the Greek economy.

Formerly a Mathematical Economist living a humble academic existence, Greece’s snap election last year spurred Varoufakis to bid adieu to his professorship at the University of Texas, in order to chase after a political role as Greek Finance Minister, at probably the worst period in Greek economic history.

And so, summoning every ounce of his rather limited supply of cautionary discretion, Varoufakis catapulted himself into the political arena just as Europe was bracing itself for a chaotic Greek end-game. Indeed, last Summer was swelteringly intense for Tsipras’s left-wing government, as rounds of strained negotiations between the Hellenic Republic and its Euro partners came to a close with the agreement to a third bailout.

Interviews

Taryana Odayar Executive Editor

scene by Europe’s inane handling of an inevitable crisis.”

Hated and loved in almost equal measure, both at home and abroad, Yanis Varoufakis’s story is almost reminiscent of a far-flung tale from Greek mythology. His unapologetically candid descriptions of political elites, calling German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble “…the puppet master who pulls all the strings”, unusual yet memorable way of explaining economics, comparing the Eurozone to the Eagles’ Hotel California, “You can check

out any time you like, but you can never leave”, and his penchant for fitted leather jackets and a certain 1300 CC Yamaha bike, are the stuff of every journalist’s dreams.

At an event appropriately titled, “Europe is Kaput! Long Live Europe” that I attended last year at Royal Festival Hall, I had the pleasure of seeing Slavoj Zizek, Yanis Varoufakis and Julian Assange all one stage (Assange via webcam), and witnessing the absorbing discussion that ensued. Admittedly, the discussion did inevitably stray at points,

Interviews | 17

fakis; Former Syriza Finance Minister with Slavoj pointing out that if Yanis supports socialism, he should be willing to share his wife and food, to which Yannis retorted that there is no way he is sharing his wife, and Slavoj stating that he’d be willing to share a wife but not his food. There were also intermittent bursts of choice language from Zizek when interrupted by the moderator including, “don’t talk to me like as if I raped your mother”, followed by an ominous, “you should be worried about your fate once we leave this stage.” But I digress.

And so it was, that, intrigued by the topic of the panel discussion and the speakers attending, I found myself at the event on “Good Europe” at the LSE last Sunday evening.

An event for which Yanis Varoufakis; wearing jeans, a purple, open–necked t-shirt that had “CHINA” stamped across the front and his signature black leather jacket, was over half an hour late for.

Perhaps his motorbike broke down en-route….

(Q) Yanis, you’ve written that sometimes economics tends to resemble “computerized astrology.” So what do the stars portend for democratic reform in the European Union?

Well, if you want my prediction, I’m going to disappoint you, because its not looking good. But then again, our hearts should not be allowed to be put down by our empirical evidence. This is the beauty of the difference between nature and society. In nature, our predictions about the weather for instance tomorrow, do not affect the weather. But in society, our predictions about social outcomes, are an input into those social outcomes. So if we are optimistic, if we choose to be optimistic, that democracy can come, then it might come. But it has to

be an act of faith. So don’t ask me for evidence, or for scientific evidence that democracy is happening.

Its not happening. But

“Hated and loved in almost equal measure...Yanis Varoufakis ...is unapologetically candid...and his penchant for fitted leather jackets and a certain 1300 CC Yamaha motorbike, are the stuff of every journalist’s dreams.” if we believe that it can happen, then it can happen.

(Q) Immanuel Kant said that individuals should be treated as ends in themselves and not as a means to something else. One could argue that states should also be treated as ends rather than as means. Looking back, did you ever feel that Greece was being used as a means to an end, or that it was a pawn on the global chessboard?

Every day I was in the government, every day I was in the government. It was abundantly clear to me that the Troika of creditors were simply not interested in having a decent rational conversation with us so our government can pay them our debts back.

So we were in a unique situation, in the history of capitalism, maybe of humanity, where we were facing creditors who didn’t want their money back. Because if they did, they would allow us to implement policies that would lead to recovery.

Instead, they wanted to

completely crush us.

Why? Because they were not interested in getting their money back, they were interested in winning the elections in Spain, in Portugal, in Ireland, and finally in France. Not having governments there that would do like what Greece did, which is to say to them, you know what, your policies are failing us.

So, yes, we had the crashing of the Greek democracy, for instrumental purposes.

And when that happens, democracy is finished throughout Europe.

Because as Hegel used to say, no one can be free as long as some people are not free, and as you’ve extended it with this Hegelian principle, no state can be free if it subjugates another state for instrumental purposes.

in a country that firstly is bankrupt, and secondly, sets surplus targets so high that it is essential, in order to try to meet them,

“It was abundantly clear to me that the Troika of creditors were simply not interested in having a decent rational conversation with us so our government can pay them our debts back.”

to tax them (investors) afterwards to such an extent that it makes no sense for them to invest. So this is a failed programme, it was designed as a failed programme to humiliate the government. Now where does that hope come from? From using the mechanisms of politics and democratic politics, in (Q) - but with regard order to create solidarity to Athens’ debt burden and rationality from being expected to Europe so that they stop exceed 187% of its doing this to each other.

GDP this year, what can you be optimistic (Q) And in terms of about with regard to finding a solution, so the Greek economy far the EU seems to be right now? stubbornly resistant Well, nothing! against progressive structural reform. But (Q) Nothing at all? with your Democracy No, no. The economic in Europe Movement programme was designed (DiEM25), a very to fail. It is an impossibility. ambitious movement, It is not difficult, it is you’re trying to change impossible for the Greek that by 2025. What economy to recover under is proving to be the this regime. The regime biggest obstacle in of the unsustainable changing the status debt, which leads to quo? silly targets for primary Lack of hope. That’s surpluses - which are silly the worst obstacle in because there is no way democratic politics. When this oppressed economy people go home after a can produce them. And long day, they sit down these silly targets deter on the couch and watch investors, because no some stupid reality show investor is going to invest because they want a bit (Q) You were once told by a left-wing scholar that as a Marxist, you always need to be optimistic Not just by Marxist scholars, but by my mother, my grandmother!

There’s a long tradition in my past pushing me towards activist optimism.

of escapism, and what do they want to escape from?

They want to escape the meaninglessness of their lives and the fact that they have no hope. And then, especially if they fear that tomorrow will be worse than today, and that their kids will be worse off than they are, then that breeds a kind of frustration that feeds into bigotry, into nationalism, into xenophobia, and not the kind of rage that leads to reason. So that is the worst obstacle. So we need to inspire those people, give them hope, to tell them that - you know what?

Humanity many times in the past has faced such impulse. And we overcome together, so come and join us because this is important.

(Q) In 1992, USA’s demands on Moscow to service Sovietera debts sowed the seeds of today’s bitter relationship between the countries. Would you say that there is a similar parallel between this and Germany’s demands on Greece, and do you think that a similar outcome is inevitable?

Absolutely. And let me give you three parallels.

One is what happened to Germany after the first World War with the Versailles Treaty, that John Maynard Keynes so vividly exposed as lunacy in his ‘The Economic Consequences of the Peace’. They were expecting Germany and her allies to reach that obligation. And Germany was crushed and Hitler was born. In 1992 as you very correctly put it, the same thing happened to the Russian people. The result is, Putin was born.

In Greece they did this in 2010, Golden Dome was born. Isn’t it time that they learnt the lesson of History that unsustainable debts pushes people into depression and nothing good comes out of it?

18 | Tuesday February 01, 2016

Pot Politics with Dr Ethan Nadelmann;

Taryana Odayar Executive Editor

DR NADELMANN IS THE founder and executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, the leading organization in the United States which promotes alternatives to the war on drugs. Described by Rolling Stone magazine as “the point man” for drug policy reform, and “the real drug czar,” Nadelmann is widely regarded as the foremost proponent of drug policy reform, both in the United States and abroad.

(Q) Dr Nadelmann, for over 20 years, you’ve been an open advocate of intelligent drug policy reform in the United States, especially in terms of legalising and regulating the use of drugs, as opposed to criminalising it. Could you tell me in a nutshell why the US government should leave pot smokers alone?

Well I mean, essentially it boils down to the fact that whether or not you or I, or anybody else smokes marijuana is none of the government’s business. I mean, its not as if our smoking marijuana is causing any immediate harm to anybody else. And to the extent that there are broader harms that the government might sensibly regulate like alcohol or tobacco or a range of other products – but just from a simple basis of “get the government out of my life, out of my body, out of my home”, boils down to that.

Beyond that of course is the fact that when you criminalise it, the result in my country has been 750,000 people being arrested each year, 90% of them just for marijuana possession charges for a joint; one of the consequences has been the incredible racial disproportionality in the way marijuana laws are enforced in the United States. And for that matter, many other countries as well including the UK, but when you see young black men are no more likely to have a joint in their pocket than young white men, but you see in America they are 2-10 times more likely to be arrested. You have cases

of women being deprived of their children because they tested for marijuana; you have hundreds of thousands of millions of people losing their jobs because they tested positive for marijuana use even though it had no impact on their job performance. Its caused taxpayers tens and tens of billions of dollars over the last number of years to enforce these laws, its thrust the business into the hands of criminals both in the US and outside. This is truly a policy that makes no sense.

(Q) Speaking of harms, in the TED talk you did a while back on ending the war on drugs, what was particularly interesting was your point about penal reform. Do you think there should be a shift in the legal system from punitive measures of justice to restorative measures?

Absolutely. Fortunately, my country is beginning to come to its senses in this regard.

Its important to realise that these incredibly high rates of incarceration are not consistent with all of American history.

They’re mostly a modern phenomenon in which the war on drugs launched by the Nixon administration in the early 70s and even more so by the Reagan administration and Congress and the first Bush administration was the catalysts for this gross, almost unprecedented expansion in the American prison population.

Think about it this way; we rank first in the world in the per capita incarceration of our fellow citizens. Even though our rates of drug use and petty crime are not that much different from Europe, we lock up people at 5 to 7 times the rate of most European countries.

China has almost 5 times our population, but only half the number of people behind bars that we have. We have the highest rate of incarceration in the history of democratic societies, and when you look at the consequences, especially for young men of colour, and especially African-American men, African-Americans make up 13% of the US population,

but almost 50% of the incarcerated population. The war on drugs, these incredibly harsh penalties, these dragnets of arresting people, mostly young people of colour, had the impact of driving this mass incarceration in the US in the 80s and 90s and early 2000s, and only now are we finally beginning to see that diminish.

With President Obama, with Democrats and Republicans in Congress, with state leaders all saying that we went too far.

(Q) And do you think this policy shift will happen within your lifetime?

Oh - there already is! I mean, leave aside the marijuana thing which is moving incredibly rapidly; its really fascinating – if you line up the most famous public opinion poll in the US, the Gallup poll, and the support for legalising marijuana, and the Gallup poll for gay marriage, what you see is that from 2004 to 2014 they lined up almost exactly from roughly 33% of the population in favour 12 years ago, to 53% in favour within the last year or two. So its a monumental social transformation.

But with respect to the broader drug war, we’re now seeing more and more states reduce their prison population, we’re seeing movement in Congress to cut this back. I’m very proud of the fact that my organisation, the Drug Policy Alliance, was the pioneer of most of the major censusing reforms. My state New York has led the country in reducing prison and jail populations and our work helped contribute to that. The same thing is being seen in California now.

But here is the challenge; we went from half a million people behind bars in 1980 to 2.3 million people today. All these reforms are in some respects very incremental, so we’re going to see the population drop to 2.2 million, 2.1 million, 2 million. But my great concern is that people will then clap themselves on the back and say, “We’ve done what we can do.”

But quite frankly, if America is to once again be average when it comes to incarcerating our fellow citizens and residents of the country, we need to cut our

prison population by more than two-thirds. And that’s going to take a really monumental transformation.

(Q) And if America were to legalise marijuana and other drugs, with this comes a bundle of intricate policy questions.

Should taxation be based on weight of the drugs, the THC content of the drugs? Will private firms be allowed to enter the market and advertise? If cannabis is legalised in the US will this lead to an increase in usage? How do you go about answering these questions?

There are no great answers.

In many ways its similar to the repeal of alcohol prohibition in the United States back in 1933. We didn’t replace alcohol prohibition with one national system of alcohol control; we had 48 states back then, each of which implemented their own alcohol control models, and within each state, different towns and counties had their own policies. You had dry towns and counties where no alcohol was served over the counter - we still have those today! You had 18 or 20 states where the government created state-sponsored monopolies over hard liquor but allowed beer and wine to be sold in wine stores. There are places like California which allowed any alcohol to be sold over the counter in supermarkets. It varies dramatically from one place to another, and I think

that’s mostly a good thing, and I know that’s the way its going to evolve with marijuana as well.

The second thing I’ll say, is that I live in perhaps the most dynamic capitalist society today and maybe even in history in some respects – America. And it’s a good thing as well as a bad thing. Uruguay became the first country a few years ago to legalise marijuana using a very different model than Colorado, Washington, Oregon or Alaska are using. There’s a chance that Canada this year could become the second country to legalise marijuana. There are now some discussions in parts of Europe, in Switzerland, Czech Republic, Spain, Demark, about finding ways to legally regulate marijuana.

So I’m optimistic that we will see a proliferation of models not only in the US, where more enterprise-driven models are likely to dominate, but I think we’ll see other models emerging. They already have models in Europe which will provide some good examples for countries that are looking to move forward.

Jamaica is an interesting case – they almost legalised – they decriminalised, they legalised religious use by Rastafarians, medical use, they decriminalised possession, they are trying to protect the rights of small-growers; the Rastas and others who have been growing for a long time.

So there are lots of different models and that’s by and large a good thing.

Interviews | 19

Executive Director of the Drug Policy Alliance (Q) You’ve built up quite a following over the years for your activism and views on drug policy reform, and Rolling Stone magazine even called you the “real drug czar”. But do you think there’s a danger of people misinterpreting your vision and have there been times in your career when you’ve had to take a step back and re-clarify your stance?

On the one hand, my basic view of drug policy has not shifted in any significant way since I first began advocating for reform back in the late 80s. The basic view that drug policy should seek to both reduce the harms of drugs; the death, disease, crime and suffering, and the harms of the government’s prohibitionist policies; crime, violence, corruption, adultery and all that. That’s been consistent throughout. The basic view that there is no inherent reason why these markets need to be criminalised, that what we should seek to do is reduce the role of criminalisation in the criminal justice system in drug control as much as possible, whilst stopping short at that point where public health is really in danger. That’s been a consistent view throughout.

Now, one of the good things is that when I first began in the late 80s – those were crazy days back then – we had a monumental war on drugs.

It was like McCarthyism on steroids. And the extent to which I was misunderstood and misinterpreted then was really challenging. People said, “Oh you’re just trying to promote drug use by kids, you’re just a pro-drugs person, you don’t care about this”, and of course that was not at all what I was saying, but people couldn’t even hear it. One mark of our success is that as our views have become increasingly mainstream views without our changing our views at all, people are more and more understanding. More and more they get it. The dialogues are becoming more sophisticated – not universally around the world, not even everywhere in America – but they really has been significant progress in

that regard.

my lifetime to.

(Q) So when you initially took up drug policy reform activism in the late 80s, was there anything in particular that drew you to this field of activism and made you certain that this is what you wanted to commit your career to?

That’s a good question! If I ask why I do what I do, part of it was growing up in a fairly religious moral family – my father was a Rabbi, Sabbath observant. Going off to college at McGill University in Montreal, beginning to smoke Cannabis and enjoying it as I did alcohol, but wondering why people were being arrested for this, why were they being harassed at the border? And then I went off to Harvard, one of the best universities in America, and many of my friends and I smoked marijuana and we still did very, very well despite all these notions that you can’t smoke marijuana and be a successful student. Then I spent a year at LSE in 1979-80 doing my MSc in International Relations and I remember feeling the paranoia that if we had a little hashish in our pocket, “Oh my God, the police are gonna arrest us and stop us!” And meanwhile you see this gross drunkenness, which sometimes I myself have participated in, and all of the rowdiness and ugliness of that, and meanwhile you just wanted to have a puff off a joint and you’re worried about the police busting you.

So on some level it kind off hit home personally, and then the other part of it was, I realised retrospectively, I needed my intellectual pursuits to be linked to something I felt passionate about personally, politically, ideologically. And in a way, the fact that I was an illicit drug user – still am today – gave it a certain personal hook. And at the same time, intellectually, the fact that all the signs, all the evidence suggested that drug policy should like this (gestures to left), with public health da da da, but all the politics were driving it here (gestures to right), that struck me as a fascinating intellectual puzzle and something worth devoting

(Q) And did your time at LSE influence your views in any way?

Well back then, my focus was more on International Relations, Middle East Politics, those were also quite personal to me as well. As somebody who had grown up Jewish and whose family had fled from Berlin during the Holocaust and all that, and I think in some respects I was initially drawn into Middle East politics and was focusing on that here, but that in a way was also too painful and too close. The drug thing was close, but not quite so painful. So I don’t know if the time at LSE had a huge impact on me except to reinforce my views that Cannabis was a lot safer than booze!

(Q) Many high-profile public figures such as George Soros and Ariana Huffington have voiced their support for drug decriminalisation.

And even Morgan Freeman very famously said, “Never give up the ganja!”. So how important do you think leadership or activism in the public sphere is in the movement to legalise drugs? As opposed to political leadership?

Its pivotal. Keep in mind that leadership can from any level. It can come from former Presidents and current Presidents, it can come from Governors and Senators and Legislators, and Parliamentarians, it can come from famous celebrities. But it can also come from people who are students, from people who are grass root activists, from people who are active drug users and begin to mobilise on behalf of their own rights, from parents who have lost a kid to a drug overdose and realised it wasn’t drugs that killed their kid but it was the system, the prohibitionist system that made the drugs so much more dangerous and resulted in the death of their child.

Now with respect to some of the people you mentioned George Soros, God bless him!

I was teaching at Princeton in

the late 80s and early 90s and writing and speaking about all this, and then one day in the Summer of ’92 I got a phone call out of the blues inviting me to lunch with George Soros.

And he was intrigued by the drug issue for the same reason he was interested in advancing human rights around the world, and promoting open societies in the tradition of Karl Popper, the famous LSE professor. And we hit it off, and one thing led to another where we formed a partnership that enabled us to turn these ideas of reform into real action. So that was pivotal.

Ariana Huffington stepped out 15 years ago and became our ally on drug policy reform.

That was before most others were ready to step out, and her ability to engage the media and attract attention was hugely valuable. Now you have this Global Commission on Drug Policy headed by former Presidents from Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, Chile, Switzerland, Portugal, a range of others, and Richard Branson! And George Schultz, the former Republican US Secretary of more or less everything! And Paul Volcker, the former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. When guys like that, and women like that, put their name behind a perspective that was previously regarded as highly controversial, even radical, that helps to legitimise it in a huge way.

When Richard Branson decides to make this one of his true passions and is always out there working with us to open this up, when he recruits Morgan Freeman to write the voiceover for his fantastic documentary Breaking the Taboo, all those things help.

Any time a person who is respected by large numbers of people steps out, it helps.

marijuana issue, and I had a long conversation with him last Summer about this and I think helped move him along on his thinking about this, but I think he’s taking much bolder positions. Hillary Clinton has basically said she will continue the Obama policy in this area, so I don’t think she’s passionate about it, I think she’ll do as much as she needs to do politically, I think Obama had a little bit more heart in what he does, but I think she would be better. Among the Republicans, many of them are just terrible on this – Trump is unpredictable so you just don’t know, he’s such a wild card.

Cruz, although he supported some sentencing reform is by and large very bad, and then there are the more “moderate” republicans, the Rubios and Bushes and guys like that who are very bad on these issues.

Kasich, the Ohio Governor who’s been showing some legs and some effort would be a little better, but we’d be best off at this point with Sanders or Clinton.

Lastly, we told students, if you could ask Ethan Nadelmann any question, what would it be? So here they are: (Q) Sativa or Indica?

Really depends on my mood and why or why not I’m using it. I mean, if its true - I don’t know if it is - then Sativa is more stimulating and Indica more of a body high, it really depends on whether its nighttime or day and what I’m hoping to do.

(Q) Store-bought or homemade edibles?

You know, the store-bought ones are getting better and better in quality, but mind you, if someone’s a great chef and knows how to put together a (Q) Which US good cannabis edible, then I’m Presidential candidate all game to try it! do you think would do the most for drug policy (Q) Favourite memory reform, or be the most while high during your progressive? time at LSE? Well, Rand Paul was the Oh wow. That’s a question libertarian Republican who that’s… would have done a lot in that regard, but he dropped out. (to read the rest of the Bernie Sanders was always interview, check out a bit uncomfortable over the beaveronline.co.uk)

20 | Tuesday 1 March, 2016

THEATRE

14

REVIEW

AUBURN: THE MUSICAL

Daniel Cayford LSE, IT APPEARS WE HAVE CREATIVITY! It gives great relief and reassurance to see that we have peers who can think outside of the box, as well as outside of the books. From a twinkling idea, to concentrated exchanges of musical passion in a bedroom, to a public stage in the big wide world (Logan Hall, Central London), Alex Leung and Laine Caruzca have created something to be truly proud of. The fact that this catchy-song, prancing dancing, witty-line filled, original musical came together in the space of just a few months is seriously impressive. Especially so, when you stop to think that all those involved have to balance studying for an LSE degree - and likely numerous internship/ job applications – on top of it all.

Auburn tells the story of Rose, a troubled girl with an inhibiting stutter, as she embarks on her university life at LSE. Predominantly set in an MA100 classroom, Rose is met with an array of colourful characters, including the heartthrob overachiever Nico. What starts as a study buddy relationship, blossoms into something far more meaningful, as Nico encourages Rose to fight for her dreams of be-

coming a singer. It does help that his mother is the well-known music mogul, Simone Cowell. In what never truly, or overtly at the least, develops from an agape to an Eros kind of love, despite the shouts from the audience begging for them to “just kiss already”, Rose gradually overcomes her fears and learns to embrace a new life, one that’s ‘true to herself ’. Moments of fragility, care-giving, confidence building and independence grow throughout, with heavy scatterings of extreme sassiness and problem set induced exasperations, as it is the LSE after all. The overlying content culminates in a fable like message highlighting some of the disabilities and difficulties faced by young people and those in minority groups, the problems that arise from a lack of understanding, and the ways people can grow with acceptance and the right support.

The character of Rose was played by Laine (the show’s CoDirector). She truly had a powerful stage presence when it came to her big solo moments, and even as the character was developing out of her shell, Laine still managed to maintain that inner fragility she inevitably held from years of feeling belittled and different.

Her stutter too never seemed silly

part

B

or patronising, conveying real emotion in her words, as well as in the lack of them. Lee Jia Lok, who played Nico, really was rather convincing as that, ‘oh I am rather brilliant, aren’t I? Gosh I didn’t notice’ kind of guy. There was an applaudable difference from his first recordings to his live performance on the night, he really did manage to make those vocals more his own. The duet shared by these two near the end of the performance, as they stepped amongst the audience, was magnetic; even over the noises of friend-sent wolf whistles and cheers all around. Alex Leung, Mr. Write-The-Theme-TuneSing-The-Theme-Tune himself, played the glittering (in all senses of the word) Greg. Any delay in delivery was more than made up by the scented slap he delivered in his punchlines, stunned that Nico wasn’t falling head over heels for him instead of that odd-ball Rose.

Not only did he then have a role as the live stage-band’s pianist, he even shared his risqué dance moves with the crowd, dipping so far back down and onto Nico that his mic came off. Things got steamy, much to Nico’s clear confusion and lack of mutual desire. Greg’s brother from another mother, Gregory, played by Dominic Tighe, added

PartB

Flo Edwards Kemi Akinboyewa Vikki Hui

that extra zing with his roaring vocals, and verging on the ridiculous wrist wiggles and stage struts. He certainly helped hammer home the power that Alex had composed into Auburn: The Musical’s score.

Praise must also go to the other named cast: Mallika Raghunathan, as Rose’s therapist, portrayed real sincerity, with vocal clarity even over an unfortunate mic signal problem, of which she powered professionally through. Anushka Sikka managed to get further under the surface of her ‘butch lesbian’ veneer, to show someone misunderstood, with frailties, yet still powerful in her own right. Emma Yuen, as Professor O, despite handing out far too many problem sets with far too little teaching, held charm and a sincere care for her students, especially Rose, throughout, whilst Anne Deng, as Nico’s mother, seemed powerful and loving, even if deeply quiet for a multi-billion pound music tycoon – but perhaps that was just Simone’s way of doing things? She could certainly teach Simon a few things.

Whilst it must be said, I have seen student performances with more coherent storylines, slightly more punchy scripts and perhaps more emotive acting, these have quite often been shows at the Edin-

burgh Fringe, authored by a chap called W. Shakespeare, not a student called A. Leung. What truly must be highlighted is the hard work, the commitment, the creativity and the collaborations from people all across the LSE, with support from LSESU Enactus, to the dancers, ushers and everyone else who played a part in Auburn’s delivery. Most importantly however is to highlight the musical compositions, which really made this small class story into a top class show.

“What truly

must be highlighted is the hard work, the commitment, the creativity, and the collaborations from people all across LSE ”

editorial team fashion Jamie Lloyd Maria Maleeva music Rob Funnell Will Locke

film

food & lifestyle

literature

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

Noah D’Aeth

Hanna Lee Yo-en Chin

THEATRE

21

THE PIANIST OF WILLESDEN LANE & THE MILIONAIRESS Noah D’Aeth THE PIANIST OF WILLESDEN LANE, directed by Hershey Felder and staged at the St. James Theatre, is a production you could almost watch with your eyes closed. Not because Mona Golabek’s one woman show is bad. The set is not ugly, and the pace is not too slow.

No, it is because the performance is told through a series of classical music recitals. It is an adaption of Golabek’s book, The Children of Willesden Lane, and is staged rather simply, with a Steinway and Sons piano at the centre of attention.

It follows the true story of Lisa Jura, the mother of the performer. She is a Viennese Jew who is a talented young pianist in love with classical music. Her hour long piano practice is, she tells us, the most important time of the week, and her dream is to debut at the Vienna concert hall, the Musikverein. These plans are thrown into disarray, however, by the ascendance of the Nazis in Austria. Lisa’s piano teacher is forced to stop giving her lessons, and her father is beaten in the street. There seems to be little hope of Lisa ever achieving her dream. In these fraught times, however, her parents find a way out for their talented daughter.

They manage to get her a place on the Kinder Transport, an initiative which saw the relocating of ten thousand, mainly Jewish, children from Europe to Britain before the outbreak of World War Two. In England, Lisa moves between several families before ending up at a hostel on Willesden Lane. Despite all the tumult, she never loses sight of her

goal, and now in London works towards an audition for the Royal Academy of Music and the fulfilling of her dream.

The theme and variation of this piece is the combination of music and memory.

Each major act in the story is accompanied by a highlight of the classical canon.

When Lisa runs from her parents’ arguments and the Nazi repression seems unbearable, Golabek performs Debussy’s Clair de Lune. It is a captivating piece of theatre. Newsreel footage of Vienna’s Jews being rounded up is projected onto the back of the stage while Debussy’s masterpiece is played, fusing images of great tragedy with an elegant and sombre melody. The effect is heart breaking, and perfectly encapsulates a mood of desperation better than any acting could.

It proves that well worn adage that while actions may speak louder than words, a piano concerto speaks loudest of all.

The only slight danger with this approach is that narrative of the piece could be submerged under the classical repertoire. If each piano solo appears without context then the play would just morph into an hour and a half of Classic FM. Thankfully though, Golabek’s physical style of acting ensures it is hard to lose sight of the main story. She seems to enjoy the various contortions required to play out her mother’s experiences; hunching her shoulders to play the hostel matron or adopting a French accent for Lisa’s suitor. It is a revealingly heartfelt portrayal.

This is the ultimate appeal of the piece, that Golabek brings delightful warmth to a very personal story; whether it is in her sprite-like acting or

considered piano playing. She also delivers an important message, that no matter how low humanity sinks, great art has the power to shine in the darkness.

George Bernard Shaw’s, The Millionairess, on the other hand is an altogether more surreal piece, though nonetheless an enjoyable affair. One of Shaw’s lesser known productions it still captures the wit and spirit of the great playwright and thinker. Staged by the drama society in collaboration with the language centre, the play formed a touchingly comic part of the LSE literary festival.

The story follows the travails of Epifania Ognisanti di Parerga, a woman whose name is as long as her bank balance is big. She is the dominant force of the piece, driving the story on and bullying the other characters. But when the action starts she is in a rather curious position, trying to dictate her will to her lawyer before attempting suicide, in what appears to be a bout of hysteria tempered by legal protocol. Matters are complicated by the arrival of her husband, Alistair Fitzfassenden, and his lover, Patricia Smith. It quickly becomes apparent that Alistair and Epifania have an unhappy, or at least unfulfilling, marriage. Despite being an amateur boxing and tennis champion, Alistair feels incredibly ordinary in her extraordinary presence. His pride is further wounded by the arrival of Adrian Blenderbland, Epifania’s lover, into what is now a slightly overcrowded lawyer’s office.

The commotion which ensues means that nothing can be settled and the characters soon retire to the country.

It is here that events take a further turn for the surreal. In a chance encounter, Epifania falls in love with a doctor whom she decides she must marry. It is not so simple though. Epifania finds her money and personality do not immediately attract this man of learning.

Instead she has to undergo a testing premarital challenge. Only after this does the doctor fall in love with her. But not because of her looks or wealth, instead he is seduced by a rather more basic anatomical feature, her steady pulse.

The LSE cast is particularly good at giving life to Shaw’s taught script.

Some of the dialogue has aged slightly, but nevertheless retains its vinegar-like sharpness, and serves up a real treat in Epifania. Celine Buckens is superb in this role, striding around the stage, hands on hips, every bit the wonder woman under a sunbonnet that Epifania is.

It is an enjoyable comic piece.

While the alternative, soviet themed ending, proves the LSE founder had a great sense of tongue-in-cheek humour.

“The LSE cast is paticularly good at giving life to Shaw’s taught script. ”

22 | Tuesday 1 March, 2016

FILM/TV

14

REVIEW

FRESH OFF THE BOAT

Sarah Ku FRESH OFF THE BOAT IS based on the memoir written by Eddie Huang, a renowned chef and food personality in the United States. The ABC’s family sitcom revolves around the Huang family’s move from Washington DC to Orlando during the 1990s. In pursuit of his American Dream, Louis (Randall Park), the optimistic and idealistic father, opens his own steakhouse, Cattlemen’s Ranch. The mother, Jessica (Constance Wu), the grandmother who is only known as “Grandma” in the series (Lucille Soong), and the kids, Eddie (Hudson Yang), Emery (Forrest Wheeler) and Evan (Ian Chen), all have a different experience of fitting into the neighbourhood. The series was released in 2015, and is currently mid-way through its second season.

In a way, Fresh Off the Boat is a pioneer that features East Asians as protagonists in main-

stream television, a sight which is extremely lacking in the TV scene on both sides of the pond. Instead of having stereotypical East Asian characters who are either Kung Fu masters or Maths prodigies, Fresh Off the Boat breaks away from these character tropes and features protagonists who are all very unique, multi-layered and developed. Even the children are vastly different from one another.

Eddie, the rebellious oldest child, struggles the most to fit into his school, seeks solace through hiphop music and strongly identifies with black history. On the other hand, Emery is a romantic and charismatic child who is well loved by everyone in the neighbourhood, while Evan is a goody twoshoes who loves to be the baby in the family. The show depicts their growth, like Eddie’s journey of finding his own group of friends and even getting a girlfriend, and Jessica’s change of parenting style as Eddie reaches his teenage years.

The show is also a brilliant attempt of showing Asian-Americans’ experience of assimilating into a predominantly white suburb and achieving their American Dream. When Louis first arrives in Orlando, his restaurant struggles with business and he even attempts to hire Caucasian hosts and waiters to boost the restaurant’s popularity. Jessica also finds it hard to make friends as the women in the neighbourhood balk at her traditional Chinese dishes like “stinky tofu”. The show also explores frustrating scenarios that Asians often encounter, such as when the women in the neighbourhood compliment Eddie on how good his English is despite the fact that Eddie was born in the States. It is very common to label Asians as the model minority, but the existence of the “bamboo ceiling”, a popular term coined by Jane Hyun, still blatantly exists in society from the corporate world to the suburbs. Fresh Off the Boat

is extremely honest in depicting the hardship that immigrants often face when they enter a new country, as well as the difficulties that second-generation immigrants encounter as they struggle to fit in because of their own skin colour and culture.

However, it is wrong to assume that only people with an Asian background would understand and appreciate the series. Yes, Jessica is almost like a typical tiger mother and yes, there are always elements that are related to Chinese culture, such as the cuisine and the traditional festivals. Yet, the show is laden with hilarious jokes that are completely unrelated to racial issues. While the series does focus on the family’s journey as first-generation and secondgeneration Taiwanese immigrants, there are universal themes that anyone can identify with. It is easy to look past the issue of race when viewers see the family drama and the children’s relationship

with their friends.

Interestingly, the author of the memoir, the real-life Eddie Huang, complained about the show’s adaptation of his memoir, as he thinks the show tells a ‘universal, ambiguous, cornstarch story’ that deviates from the plot and details of his own autobiography. However, as the show is a sitcom, I do find that there is a good balance between depicting honest reality and offering a humorous series that can cater to everyone’s taste. To echo the recent words of Katie Leung, the actress who portrayed Cho Chang in Harry Potter, we certainly need acting roles that are not specific to the actors being Chinese, as the industry should reflect the diversity of society. This show is a big step in widening the roles of East Asian actors and actresses in the television and film industry, and as a sitcom, it surely is hilarious and well produced.

LITERATURE

23

REVIEW

TULIP FEVER Camila Arias-Buritica

TULIP FEVER IS A TALE ABOUT art, love, and breaking the rules. Sophia Sandvoort has never considered straying from the path of faithfulness in her marriage, until her husband Cornelis hired the young, talented painted Jan van Loos to paint their portrait. Once she begins to break the rules, it seems that there is no stopping, and before long, the pair’s lies grow bigger than either of them can control.

Set against the backdrop of ‘Tulipomania’ in 1630s Amsterdam, Moggach’s story captures the imagination from the first page. I loved the way that each chapter was short and sweet, and the way that each scene was described like a painting, in beautiful but not too-longwinded detail. With Moggach’s writing, you dive headfirst into the story, and feel as if you can see, feel, and smell everything that she describes, from the food to the dresses and Amsterdam itself. Each of the characters has a chance to tell the story from their point of view, from the main three, Sophia, Cornelis and Jan, to Sophia’s maid Maria, Jan’s apprentice Jacob and his servant Gerrit (some of my favourite chapters). There are even chapters told by paintings, flower sellers, and seasons. This flitting between characters was done with subtlety and didn’t interrupt the story at all, but rather made it flow perfectly, showing each of the characters’ roles in the story.

From when I picked up the book, I was intrigued by this ‘Tulipomania’. The idea of a nation becoming so obsessed with flowers that men gave up their jobs and risked their livelihoods to nurture and sell them was fascinating. When it finally became intwined with the story, I was thrilled, but I wish that it had played a bigger role, or that we could have seen more of its effects. There were hints of it in the opening chapters, but when it actually did become a part of the story, I felt like it was brushed over a little too much.

There was only one issue that I really had with this book, and that was that I felt like I had simply read it before for much of the first half of the book. If you, like me, have read other books set in a similar period in Amsterdam, also with an emphasis on art or forbidden romances, like Girl With a Pearl Earring or The Miniaturist, it might feel a little repetitive. However, this is more to do with me than the book itself, and once the story had really got going (past the simple, bound to happen love affair), I could see that this story was going along a route that I hadn’t read before. Therefore, if you start doubting whether this book is a repeat of something else, don’t be fooled. The story is thrilling and full of twists and turns, and you won’t regret finishing it off.

Overall, the beautiful writing in Tulip Fever matched with the exciting storyline made it a pleasure to read. I couldn’t get enough of it and couldn’t bear to put the book down. The narrative flows beautifully and not a single word felt out of place. Definitely read this book before the movie is released later this year.

14

24

| Tuesday 1 March, 2016

IN PHOTOS

FASHION

LONDON FASHION WEEK AW16

“At the after parties, we had to pretend to act really cool and not startstruck at all.”

Photos: Andre Bogues Shows photographed include: Fyodor Golan, Belstaff for WJ London, Zandra Rhodes for WJLondon and Sid Neigum Read more on Andre’s blog: devcartoon.blogspot.co.uk

FASHION

25

IT’S FASHION SEASON...

AND THE SHOW MUST GO ON Maria Meleeva EXCITING WEEKS ARE AHEAD FOR ALL THE FASHION ENTHUSIASTS OUT THERE – 2016 collections are appearing. Having already gotten glimpse at some New York and London trends, one can see that they are amazing!

I am particularly happy about the idea of ‘wearable fashion’. Don’t get me wrong, but carcass-style coats and long transparent dresses look weird when you’re rushing to the class or stuck among tube-folks. Designers have finally made something extraordinary. Ralph Lauren, for example, presented a less-hippy-more-classy bohemian collection mixed with some military-style pieces. DKNY practically nailed that careless grunge style - the dresses are definitely

worth checking out. Vera Wang and Marc Jacobs also freed their inner rebels with their dark-coloured chiffon and man coats which could be easily imagined in Tim Burton movies. To top things off, Rihanna in her collaboration with Puma and Rag and Bone decided to play the sport girl - I picture these looks on street-style pages of the magazines in a couple of weeks.

All in all, the majority of New York designers decided to take on dark colours and unconventional textures, and these always make for a nice photo. I would also like to draw your attention to the Coach leather jacket which is just mind-blowing.

Furthermore, I need to mention another group of designers that decided to embrace feminine, innocent looks.

The fantastic Delpozo made a statement with fairy looks

featuring bright colours and flower patterns. Oscar de la Renta and Zac Posen wowed everyone with elegant, timeless silhouettes and perfect work with fabric. Tommy Hilfiger decided to introduced modest preppy looks with some distinguishing details like beads and shiny materials. My favourite collection was by The Row – incredible simplicity and pure colour are two words to explain it. I would definitely wear it every day - classically cut coats, spaghetti strap nude dresses, oversized tops and cosy cardigans are a great look for London fashionistas.

Of course it’s only the beginning of the huge fashion story. Paris and Milan will have more in stock to surprise us. I can already tell I’m going to want almost everything in every upcoming show (especially one of those Reem Acra dresses which would be perfect for my graduation ball).

Photos: womenmanagement.com

A late 1920s story about a light-minded British girl, attractive American guy, and a queer cabaret host. This event is open for everyone! Be sure to buy a ticket, and keep up with any updates on the Facebook event page.

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

AND MUCH MORE

The NAB Academy Awards Bears

SE eL Th

NAB Actress in a Leading Role Nona Buckley-Irvine in ‘The Revenant’

I <3 ORM PLATF

LS ESU NO

C FEMSO

Actor in a Supporting Role Paul Kelly as Captain Smith in ‘Titanic’

Best Animated Feature LSESU IFEMSOC ‘Despicable Me’ Actor in a Leading Role James Wurr in ‘How To Be Single’

This event was made possible * through the generous sponsorship of a dodgy Australian mining company and the Chinese Government. NAB would like to extend its lukewarm thanks to them. *probably

Directing Craig Calhoun in ‘50 Shades of (Moral) Grey’

Other nominees included: • LSE Timetables Office in ‘Mission Impossible V’ (Adapted Screenplay) • Alex Leung for ‘Pitch Imperfect’ (Original Song) • Maurice Banerjee Palmer in ‘The Lady in the Ban’ (Documentary - Short) • Ellen Wilkie in ‘Postman Pat’ (Actress in a Supporting Role)

PTOs Cinematography The LSESU PTOs in ‘The Hateful Eight’

28 | Tuesday 1 March 2016

BDS Target of New Regulation New guidelines appear to be aimed specifically at the BDS movement

The City

Section Editor: Alex Gray Deputy Editors: Henry Mitchell

Muhummed Cassidy LSE Undergraduate IN 2005, PALESTINIAN CIVIL society issued a call for a campaign of Boycotts Divestment Sanctions (BDS) against Israel, until it complies with international law and Palestinian rights.

A truly global movement against Israeli Apartheid has rapidly emerged in response to this call and BDS has been used as a strategy that allows people of conscience to play an effective role in the Palestinian struggle for justice. A number of public bodies have ethical procurement policies that prevent them from buying or investing in certain kinds of products; they have used these ethical considerations to give effect the BDS movement.

For example, an article in the Independent newspaper notes that; In 2014, the Scottish Government published a procurement notice to Scottish Councils warning that it “strongly discourages trade and investment from illegal settlements” set up

by Israel.

Labour controlled Birmingham City Council warned last year that it would not renew its waste disposal contract with French waste management company Veolia unless it pulled out of the illegally occupied West Bank. In 2014 Leicester City Council passed a policy of boycotting products produced in illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

Yet, on the 17th February 2016, the government published new guidance that aims to stop what it calls ‘inappropriate procurement boycotts by public authorities’. The guidance is intended to remind contracting authorities ‘of their interna-

Wikimedia Commons

tional obligations when letting public contracts’. It states that ‘boycotts in public procurement are inappropriate, unless formal legal sanctions, embargoes and restrictions have been put in place by the UK government’.

The report makes clear that ‘all contracting authorities will be impacted by this new guidance and warns that ‘any public body found to be in breach of the regulations could be subject to severe penalties’.

The government has not tried to disguise the fact that these regulations are aimed at preventing local authorities from participating in the BDS (Boycott Divestment Sanctions) movement against Israel and its illegal settlements. The policy paper was unveiled ahead of the Cabinet Office Minister, Matt Hancock’s, visit to Israel and in a press release it was added that: “any discrimination against Israeli suppliers involving procurements” would violate the policy guidance. The cabinet office has gone as far as claiming that such boycotts play a part in ‘fuelling anti-Semitism’.

Matthew Hancock MP, minister for the Cabinet Office, said: “We need to challenge and prevent these divisive town hall boycotts” as they “will help prevent damaging and counterproductive local foreign policies undermining our national security”. The policy paper suggests that such boycotts can “damage integration and community cohesion within the United Kingdom, hinder Britain’s export trade, and harm foreign relations to the detriment of Britain’s economic and international security.” It also states such boycotts can be “unlawful and lead to severe penalties against the contracting authority and the

Government.”

Unsurprisingly, the government policy paper has been met with a backlash of criticism, since one might have thought that the boycott or refusal to buy goods from the settlements is pretty much non-controversial.

MP, Tommy Sheppard, has said in a Facebook post that “this government’s plan is, quite simply, outrageous. Our local authorities, universities and other public bodies should have the right to make their own, ethical decisions about where they invest their money and who they purchase products from. This policy is nothing more than an outright assault on local democracy and we should all be very concerned by the introduction of this new guidance.”

“Let’s be clear, Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are illegal under international law. The suggestion that public bodies could find themselves breaking the law by refusing to trade with companies based in illegal settlements, and involved in human rights abuses, is utterly absurd.”

Sheppard goes on to note “that this announcement was heralded on the Conservative Friends of Israel website indicates to me that our Cabinet ministers are working closely with one of the most powerful pro-Israeli lobby groups. This is definitely not a government making objective trading decisions based on international law; this is an ideological position taken by a government determined to prevent economic consequences resulting from the Israeli state’s continued violations of international humanitarian law.”

Indeed, the government’s new policy paper seems to contradict its own previous guide-

lines on the risks of trading with Israeli settlements. In 2013 guidance published by UK Trade & Investment, a government body that works with British businesses in international markets, says there are “clear risks related to economic and financial activities in the settlements, and we do not encourage or offer support to such activity.” It goes on to note that “financial transactions, investments, purchases, procurements as well as other economic activities (including in services like tourism) in Israeli settlements or benefiting Israeli settlements, entail legal and economic risks stemming from the fact that the Israeli settlements, according to international law, are built on occupied land and are not recognised as a legitimate part of Israel’s territory.

This may result in disputed titles to the land, water, mineral or other natural resources which might be the subject of purchase or investment. EU citizens and businesses should also be aware of the potential reputational implications of getting involved in economic and financial activities in settlements, as well as possible abuses of the rights of individuals.” Such contractility guidance would certainly give weight to Sheppard’s claim that the government is bowing to external pressure from powerful pro-Israeli lobby groups.

Speaking to Al Jazeera, Sai Englert, a member of the National Union of Students’ executive council, said that the government’s move to ban boycotts “is a sign of the times ... when Palestine activism is being targeted.” Similarly, Englert, who is a PhD student at SOAS, said the sweeping measure is part of a broader government campaign of “silencing people who stand for social justice issues and human rights” across the world.

Rafeef Ziadeh, a BDS spokeswoman, said in a statement. “Rather than working to hold Israel to account for its ongoing human rights violations, UK ministers continue the arms trade with Israel and attack local democracy in order to shield it from any criticism,” Ziadah has, however, pointed out that the new measures are unlikely to succeed in “thwarting the growing public support for the Palestinian struggle for freedom, justice and equality.” Nonetheless it is still the case that the UK government and all EU member states have a duty to take a proactive approach to preventing businesses from contributing to Israeli violations of international law and Palestinian human rights as opposed to providing it with immunity.

The City |29

Media Outrage Fuels Media Outrage

The media’s outrage in the face of anti establishment sentiment fuels that very sentiment Aris Grivokostopoulos LSE Undergraduate THIS WEEK’S COVER OF ‘The Economist’ says it all. Title: Brexit. Subtitle: Bad for Britain, Europe and the West. Mainstream publications of every kind and orientation have been and will be taking sides on this crucial referendum, which will take place on the 23rd of June.

Bombarding readers with facts and scary scenarios, pleading for voter rationality and long-sightedness, ridiculing the populists and uninformed poorly educated supporters of the opposition.

The tactics to be used are predictable, tested, proven. Sorry to say, but they are proven to be wrong. Bias towards a side, especially when it comes from mainstream media, is as ineffective as a pro-austerity Labour Party campaign. This is the post-crash political reality for Britain, and we ought to live with it, because it does not seem that it is in any direction of positive change.

Voters do not trust the establishment, as they do not trust the Labourites with spending cuts.

In this Britain, a balanced analysis of the arguments of both sides of the referendum field is as influential as a Corbynite Labour which opposes the notion of austerity.

Why do I draw this comparison? Voting psychology follows a train of thought, a succession of moves that are in consistency and agreement with each other.

In 2015, the Brits voted for the Tories, since Ed Miliband did not convince them as a fiscally conservative (nor as a protector of the weak against the City).

Before the parliamentary elections, they had voted for Scotland to stay in the UK, only by a negligible margin. After the parliamentary elections, they voted for Corbyn as Labour’s leader, by a sizeable margin, and more notably, because he appeared as a threat to the establishment (and a protector of the weak against the City). The latter vote was following a full-scale attack against the candidate during his pre-election campaign, from all sides of mainstream media. And that includes the ‘BBC’, ‘The Independent’ and ‘The Guard-

ian’, so it was not only limited to ‘The Telegraph’ and the likes.

Similarly, the media has taken on a full-scale attack on the ‘Leave’ campaign (and by media I exclude the tabloids which are traditional Eurosceptics). When both ‘The Economist’ and the ‘FT’ (naturally, protectors of the City) have taken so explicit and clear positions in this prereferendum race, I am afraid of a repetition of what happened in the Labour leadership election. Even if you argue that Corbyn would have won anyway, recent referendum history (from a country facing a similar dilemma to Britain) confirms my suspicions and intensifies my fears.

Yeap, once again I will be referring to Greece and that dreamlike (maybe nightmare-like) referendum week last summer.

That week was a nightmare already for most (actually all) citizens of Greece, as capital controls and cash withdrawal limits were imposed. It became even worse, or at least it was made to look even worse, due to the media and the overall stance of the establishment.

Two former prime-ministers, as well as other various other ‘influential’ and ‘trustworthy’ figures made television statements addressing the Greek public in war-time fashion, obviously in support of the ‘YES’ side “in fear of a catastrophic Grexit”.

The establishment’s attempt to apply fear-tactics bordered the line of ridiculousness when the country’s most famous Pop idol uploaded a video of him being “serious” about the referendum.

Nevertheless, the establishment is the establishment and it is its responsibility to prevent risky disruptive situations, such as a “NO” vote on the terms of an EU-proposed bailout deal. On the other hand, the mainstream media’s responsibilities are separated from those of the establishment. We should view them as two different entities, so if they try to identify with each other at a time of popular distrust of the establishment, then people will not trust the media. The next step after distrust is rejection. Greece (and Britain during the Labour Party elections) went a step further. They chose to do

the opposite of what the media was tirelessly backing. Reverse psychology was in full swing.

So why am I producing a narrative to show that a balanced discussion of the referendum sides is needed, even though if I was to vote, naturally I would vote for ‘Stay’ (EU citizen)? Why give a chance to Mr. Farage and his arguments which go against the mainstream academic consensus? Primarily, because these arguments are the voices of those who do not come from London or Cambridge, and so they are worth our respect. At least enough respect to print them on paper even though we do not believe in them. This is what we choose to call ‘responsible unbiased journalism’. Unintentionally or not, during this pre-referendum the mainstream media may be drawn into the propaganda of the British establishment. It is not worth making that mistake, risking another unintentional event. An unintentional application of reverse psychology. Like a ball in full swing, wrecking the establishment’s fifty-plus years of sweat and tears.

Premier League, Premier Competition?

Second of two part series looking at the parallels between top flight football and business Benjamin Thomas LSE Undergraduate THE PREMIER LEAGUE IS currently in an interesting position compared to other top flights throughout Europe and more broadly the footballing world. The league does not possess the best teams in the world, recent years have seen a dominance of the Champions League by the likes of Barcelona, Real Madrid, Bayern Munich, and PSG. However, it continues to have a reputation as the best domestic league in the world, its top clubs are world renowned and the have global support, the league brings in the most of revenue of any top-flight league, and players and managers, especially recently, are keen to move to our shores. But how does this league seemingly transcend from elite status to unparalleled status, what makes the Premier League so premier?

The answer seems fairly simple at first, competition. The FA has managed the revenues of the Premier League such that the massive television revenues are divided fairly among top flight clubs, at least in comparison to other leagues. This allows many teams to compete in the league throughout the table and promotes exciting competitive matches. These many strong

teams with many exciting games increase global interest providing more television revenue and a feedback loop. Consider the top clubs of England (Cardiff and Swansea have yet to reach the mountain top) compared to the other leagues, in recent years we have seen Manchester United, Man City, Chelsea, Arsenal, Tottenham, Liverpool stake claims as elite teams but continue to face the challenges of the likes of Southampton, Everton, Leicester, West Ham, and Stoke. Other leagues have domination where the Ligue 1 is a cakewalk for PSG, Bayern Munich seems impenetrable in the Bundesliga with others scrapping for the remaining spots, Serie A is seeing the decline of traditional challengers and concentration of power, and La Liga has become the site of easy wins for Real Madrid, Barcelona, and Atletico. The sharing of moneys seems to have promoted competitiveness over Premier League transfers, fixtures, and spots in the table. This would seem a utopian dream for the neo-liberals among us, with competition bringing success to all.

However, the fact of the matter is that the competitiveness of the Premier League is artificial and hides the disparities that plague the wider football

pyramid. In essence, the Premier League leads the world in revenue, but that same revenue is only shared among top flight teams. While Stokealona may be purchasing top quality players, lower league sides are struggling to pay the bills and achieve promotion. In the Championship which is only one league below teams often have to sell their top-achieving players and are unable to buy replacements, relying on loaned players from the Premier League. Relegated teams are given massive ‘parachute payments’ to meet wage bills and can outspend their competitors, excepting cases of ownership turmoil. Further down the table, attendance con-

Wikimedia Commons

tinues to decline with fans leaving the traditional ties of their local club behind for an aggressively marketed, flash Premier League side. It’s no surprise that a discussion with LSE students will turn up many Red Devils, Cityzens, and Reds despite the fact you’re incredibly unlikely to find a Scouser or a Mancunian.

The success of top sides hides struggles for lower league sides.

What does this mean, other than that the FA Cup magic of Reading’s run to the quarterfinals needs more attention?

Firstly, that competition is a difficult concept to achieve. Although competition seems to be a good thing when comparing different structures, institution-

alised competition can in effect institutionalise domination.

Decisions over which groups deserve special protections can marginalise those not selected.

Secondly, dominance in an industry is not necessarily limited to monopolies and duopolies but also extends into the broader realms of oligopolies and cartels. Thirdly, that not all competition is fair competition, when market position and collusion create barriers for the entry of competitors (note the struggle for teams without wealthy rulebending owners). And finally that highly priced tickets are not the only economically uncouth actions of the Premier League and its clubs.

30

|Tuesday March 1, 2016

LSE Take On The Champs At BUCS Indoors

Joey Callender-Wood LSE Athletics Club Captain A small team of athletes travelled up to Sheffield’s English Institute of Sport indoor stadium (Jessica Ennis’ home turf) to compete in the BUCs indoor athletics Championships over the weekend of 19-21st February. A strong turnout for our middle distance runners saw Antonin Boissin, George Bettsworth and Typhaine Christiaen competing in the 1500m, - an incredibly competitive and popular event, with 8 heats for the men and 3 heats for the women. After a rapid start and first 3 laps of the 200m track, Antonin finsihed 4th place in his heat, missing qualification for the semi-finals by only 6 places out of a total field of 54 runners.

George ran a strong race in a rapid heat to finish 6th in his heat and 48th overall. Typhaine, having had an incredible winter cross country season found herself up against Bobby Clay, current European Junior 1500m indoors champion in her heat (no pressure then). Clocking in a time of 5:01:05, placed her 10th overall (out of 19 athletes) and just missing out on a semi-final qualifying place. Next up was the Mascot

race. The six packs and toned legs that had been treading the track all morning were swapped for sailors, lions, ducks, goats, a calculator (had to be Imperial) and of course our very own LSE Beaver (aka Saaber Fatehi). Due to unprecedented demand two races were held, followed by a final straight after. Although a London University mascot champion and with improved mascot running technique (the head didn’t fall off this time) the BUCs mascot game was higher than anticipated, - a place in the final was just out of reach this time round. Brunel University’s Duck took the title, although eyebrows were raised regarding the costume’s relative ease of movement…. The end of Saturday saw our BUCs indoor star Yasmin Lakin comfortably qualify for a place in Sunday’s triple jump final. An early rise on Sunday didn’t deter LSE’s pocket rocket, as she landed a mammoth jump of 11.60m in the final, placing her 5th out of 28 athletes overall. Having recovered from injury not long ago to produce a season best this early on in the season is a sign of very good things to come this outdoor season, - watch this space.

Volleyball Men’s 1s vs Queen Mary 1s won 3-0 Women’s 1s vs Kingston 1s won 3-0 Netball Women’s 1s vs RVC 1s won 34-29 Women’s 3s vs UAL 2s won 43-30

Football Women’s 1s vs UCL 2s won 2-1 Men’s 1s vs Hertfordshire 3s won 5-1 Men’s 5s vs King’s College 3s won 3-1 Basketball Men’s1s vs Canterbury Christchurch 1s won 63-51

Table Tennis Men’s 1s vs Loughborough 1s won 9-8 The Men’s 1s advance to national semi-finals Hockey Women’s 1s vs Royal Holloway 1s won 4-1 Mixed 1s vs UCL 1s won 9-0

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

DOUBTLESS, ONE OF nature’s most inexplicable caprices can be found in her uncanny knack of throwing up surprises, willy-nilly.

What seems at first glance to be a sure thing, a no-brainer, a non-Negotiable no-Needh-to-argue-about-it fact, can, on the whim of such an ethereal concept as technique, be turned downside up on its head, sideways and back again, in but a Blink of an eye.

And it was as a testament to such fine margins, upon which great battles are won and roads to Perdition are Kaarved out, that the midweek

sport of a Wednesday afternoon continued far later into the PM than was customary, bringing ring-side the 500 most fixated spectators north-west of Berrylands.

And what a spectacle it was. The LSE AU’s annual Fight Night, whose highlights were immortalised forever in the annals of social media history by not only its coverage in a coveted slot of Snapchat’s London story, but furthermore by expert footage shot by the Bollywood-Hollywood Beverley Hills residing sCheemwriter-actor of the Men’s Rugby Club, was an exercise in high-class event execution, marking something of an apotheosis for this year’s Executive.

History repeated itself with the third controversial Vera-Cruz incident in the last 3 centuries. Muscles it wasn’t biologically sure existed were on display, Negating any lingering inkling that the fight would be a close

contest. But, with mouths agape, the rabble assembled did watch the most shocking moment in sporting history, since Eric Cantona kicked the shit out of a man watching football.

Elsewhere, Dutch courage didn’t prevail against Manic power, as it became a classic case of I just Kaan’t take it anymore, and one footballer Needed an early bell because all the Joshing about got a bit too much.

At this point, it appears instructive to diagnose the shockingly high levels of explicit activity that followed the extravaganza as a direct, knockon (or out, if I may) effect of the adrenalin that the entertainment had sent coursing through our veins. The statistics suggest that things got really steamy, really quickly.

A Seedy individual got Dohwn and dirty with an Ellectric fresher, while a close friend of his was Made Mad with love for his Saving grace,

clearly Dertermined to remain wived for every second of every day.

Another man Harried an old friend like a Rabid dog, until, Hayleyllujah, the battle was won. Nostalgia must have been in there as another old flame was rekindled, as an Inept and enfeebled drunkard reminisced about times gone by, when life was simpler and grass was Greener.

A Bazhful rugby fresher tried to Tayke the piss by seizing Le Moment, and rumour has it fun was had.

Downstairs in the Lower ground section of the Grade I listed building that is the Zoo Bar, Bridges were constructed between the two greatest colleges of the University of London.

The Domino effect of ubiquitous embraces was evident, as conGnial company was provided to all who wanted it, seemingly. We may row, bicker and box, but in the end, we’ll always kiss and make up.

Sport | 31

Fight Night: In Pictures Warm up in the ring Fighters: Zara Ash &Varun Bhatt

Fight Number One: Louis Georgiou vs Taek Kim Winner: Louis Georgiou

Fight Number Two: Mona Prayag vs Zara Ash Winner: Zara Ash

Fight Number Three: Arj Sehgal vs Varun Bhatt Winner: Arj Seghal

Fight Number Four: Tiana Gordon vs Perdita Blinkhorn Winner: Tiana Gordon

Fight Number Five: Josh Pm vs Michael Needham Winner: Josh Pm

Fight Number Six: Alexandra Kaars Sijpesteijn vs Manola Zblza Winner: Manola Zblza

Fight Number Seven: Mikhail Neganov vs Stephen Vera-Cruz Winner: Mikhail Neganov

Photo Credit: Jesse Nght Only By Nght

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

Fight Night Unites the Athletics Union Elin Harding AU Exec - Events Officer

Sport

Section Editor: India Steele Deputy Editor: Vacant

WEEK 7 BROUGHT WITH an air of excitement and anticipation for one of LSEAU’s biggest events of the year, Fight Night 2016. An annual event that sees AU Clubs take on each other in the boxing ring, Fight Night is a true survival of the fittest. With sell out tickets and maximum capacity, Fight Night 2016 promised to be bigger and better than ever before. Firstly, here is a quick run-down of all the Fights and champions (I will not embarrass myself with trying to commentate on each fight, will leave that to the professionals) before I move on to highlight the most important message I took away from the night.

Two brave souls took on boxing opponents in a bid to beat them at their own sport, with Louis’ Georgious (Rowing) against Taeuk Kim (boxing) and Mona Prayag (boxing) against Zara Ash (Pole Fitness). Both Louis’ and Zara defeated their boxing opponents to become champions (that’ll be one to tell the kids). The Boxing Club held an inter-club fight, between Alex Kaars Sijpesteijn* (*Dutch Alex to most) and Manola Zblza, with Manola winning this match (although the MC didn’t claim so… #awks). Arj Seghal (Mens Rugby) met Varun Bhatt (Kabaddi) in the ring; despite Varuns best efforts, Arj won this fight. Tiana Gordon (Womens Rugby) fought Perdita Blinkhorn (Womens Hockey) in a gruelling fight that led Tiana to victory (just in case you didn’t hear Womens Rugby screaming…). Mens Football entered three fighters this year, with one inter-FC fight between Michael Needham (2nd Team) and Josh PM (1st Team), won by Josh. The final fight of the evening was the highly anticipated heavyweight between Mikhail Neganov (Mens Rugby) and Stephen Vera-Cruz (Mens FC). In a surprising and unforeseen situation the fight ended in less than a minute, with Mikhail Neganov taking the victory (cue insane chanting from both clubs).

Shout out to our volunteer Ring Girls and Ring Boys for their sass and attitude on the

night; there was strutting, twerking and intense choreography (*cough* Taye and Dougie *cough*). You held those Round boards with grace and elegance (Henk maybe not so much) and think about it, without you guys (who were clearly in it for the free tickets) the event would have been a plight of confusion and chaos.

The event was sponsored by Red Bull, who came down and set up a VIP area in the mezzanine for Club Captains and guests with free drinks, as well as reducing the cost of all drinks served with Red Bull (some (read: me) may claim this ended badly and resulted in very manic Thursday).

Now on to that “important message” I mentioned above: Despite the premise that the purpose of the night is rifts between clubs, and the defeating of the opposition, Fight Night 2016 could not have more clearly demonstrated the unity of the Athletics Union and the Students Union. This year the evening was held in collaboration with the Red Lips Project, organised by Women Leaders of Tomorrow and Women in Business. The Red Lips Project aims to remind the women of LSE of their intrinsic strength and power; being on

board for an event such as Fight Night is a further encouragement for more women to be getting into sport. We also worked with the Women’s Network in line with the Students Unions recent “Good Night Out” campaign, which aims to tackle sexual harassment on campus. Bar staff wore t-shirts encouraging people to “Call it Out” and report any harassment to them, and posters have been put up all around the Union building.

This event not only united the Athletics Union with various other branches of the Students Union, but united clubs to be one AU. With participation from Rowing, Men’s Rugby, Men’s Football, Boxing, Pole Fitness, Kabbaddi, Women’s Rugby and Women’s Hockey a varied range of clubs got involved. As an Exec, we would like to thank all fighters who dedicated time to the event and for their incredible sportsmanship (rumour has it Alex and Manola were tearing up the shots at Zoo Bar). Congratulations on training, fighting and most importantly being the stars of an event that made the London Life Snapchat Story amongst snaps of the BRITS 2016.

Also a special thanks to the

Boxing Club, especially Club Captain Kamran who played an instrumental part in the organisation and running of this event.

From start to finish Kam has been there assisting not only the fighters with their training and skill, but also the AU Exec with the logistical side of organising such a huge event (Exec Walkie Talkies weren’t just for show you know #EagleHasLanded). I would safely say that to date it is the event that has taken the most logistical planning, and with the help of the boxing club, it paid off and was also, I think, our best event to date (big claims).

The Exec, Boxing Club and Ring Girls/Boys wore the Clubs “I punch like a Girl” t-shirts to further their campaign to encourage girls into sports where they are highly under-represented. A campaign that begun in Women in Sports Week, it was great to be able to continue the support of it during Fight Night.

It was a sick event, and a sick night and anyone who says otherwise clearly just didn’t buy a ticket in time #bitter. This event brought together sportspeople from across the AU, united by one thing; their dedication to sport.

This is what the AU is about.