The Beaver - #908

The Beaver Making Sense of LSE Since 1949

Newspaper of the LSE Students’ Union

-

beaveronline.co.uk

- Issue 908

-

Tuesday 10 December 2019

LSE NO LONGER INVESTED Inside Today Features IN ILLEGAL ARMS FOI Requests by The Beaver reveal progress in LSE’s investment commitments

Colin Vanelli Features Editor

L

SE continues to make progress on its November 2015 pledge to divest from financial holdings in tobacco, tar sands, thermal coal, and indiscriminate armaments under the Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) Policy. As of July 2019, the School has eliminated all exposure to direct or indirect investments in indiscriminate arms, which are illegal under international law.

Information obtained by The Beaver through a Freedom of Information request, reveals that the first three categories make up 0.4%, 0.1%, and 0.1%, respectively, of LSE’s £154,409,375 endowment.

LSE’s total holdings in SRI divested properties, which now stand at 0.6% of the fund and are collectively worth a little under a million pounds, have decreased from 3.2% of the endowment since July 2016, when the SRI came into force.

The most significant reduction came from a 2.5% percentage-point reduction in tobacco holdings.

Since the 2015/6 implementation of the SRI policy, LSE has reduced its holdings in the targeted areas by over 80%. The School has no direct investments in any SRI properties; its remaining exposure comes from index funds—so-called ‘indirect’ investments. The School also has no direct exposure to armaments in general, although it maintains exposure to weapons companies through

index funds.

The 2016 pledge, a so-called ‘partial’ pledge because it includes only specific categories of fossil fuels and arms, instructs the Investment Subcommittee to not have direct holdings in stocks issued by companies which are involved in the manufacture of tobacco or coal, or significantly engaged in thermal coal or tar sands, and to progressively reduce its holdings in index funds which include these properties.

Groups on campus, including the Climate Emergency Collective and EcoSoc, are calling on the School to adopt a more comprehensive divestment policy which includes all forms of fossil fuel and armaments.

LSE Climate Emergency Collec-

tive told The Beaver: “This shows that divestment is not impossible, or even difficult, it just requires genuine commitment. Now, LSE must expand its divestment pledge to include all forms of fossil fuels and armaments.

“The law isn’t an indicator of what is right and what is necessary. LSE’s SRI commitments are a first step in recognising that where we put our money is an important statement of who we are as an institution.”

Financial reports reviewed by The Beaver suggest that LSE had over £1,000,000 in direct and indirect holdings related to fossil fuels and maintained indirect exposure to the weapons industry as of November 2018.

The Beaver’s

A New Constitution General Election Coverage for a New Paper

Interview: LSE Prof. Gerges on London Bridge

10 Comment Election Chatter LSE students share their voting intentions

Opinion, Analysis, and Candidate Interviews

L

ast week, the Beaver’s Collective - a group of students who have made substantial contribution to the paper - voted and approved a constitutional amendment radically changing the paper’s democratic practices.

In short, the collective is no more. The democratic body of the paper is now the Beaver Society, to which any student at LSE can gain access to by getting a free membership. The Executive team has been expanded, and staff positions have been enshrined in the constitution.

Below, you can find a more detailed summary of the changes: Replacement of the Collective with the Society The main change to the constitution is the dissolution of the Collective. We argue that the Collective - once created to gatekeep editorial control - is no longer necessary. Editorial Control will be guaranteed by other changes - like changes to the Disciplinary procedure, and increased rights for elected positions.

The democratic body of The Beaver is now the Society - which any member of LSESU can acquire access to for free. This will mean that the democratic body will be much larger, drawing many more people to the decision making process. This means the Collective Chair position will be eliminated.

Executive Team The executive team is restructured into 5 positions instead of 2. The positions are the following: Executive Editor (responsibilities remain as before); Managing Editor (goes back to constitutional responsibilities of managing the: design, distribution, business, and management of the society; no longer de-facto responsible for Beaver sections); Beaver Editor (new position, now responsible for Beaver sections); Flipside Editor (in place as de facto executive for two years, new constitution reflects this practice); Multimedia Editor (in place as senior editor since this year, becomes part of the executive team).

Continues Page 2

7 News

UGM Motion for Free Sanitary Products Inquorate

3

DON’T FORGET TO FLIP OVER FOR

FLIPSIDE

The Beaver

2

Tuesday 10 December 2019 | The Beaver www.beaveronline.co.uk

Established 1949 | Issue 908 | Newspaper of the LSE Students’ Union

Meet the team Executive Editor Morgan Fairless editor@beaveronline.co.uk Managing Editor Isabella Pojuner managing@beaveronline.co.uk Flipside Editor Christina Ivey flipside@beaveronline.co.uk Multimedia Editor Yasmina O’Sullivan Design Editor Colette Fogarty Editorial Assistants Ross Lloyd Jamie Boucher Illustrators Rebekah Paredes-Larson Raphaelle Carmarcat Emma Duper Amelia Jabry Sebastian Mullen News Editors Laura Zampini Jeffrey Wang Elena Christaki-Hedrick news@beaveronline.co.uk Comment Editors Lucy Knight Michael Shapland comment@beaveronline.co.uk Features Editors Marianne Hii Colin Vanelli Annabelle Jarrett features@beaveronline.co.uk Part B Editor Maya Kokerov partb@beaveronline.co.uk Review Editors Amber Iglesia Zehra Jafree partb@beaveronline.co.uk Sport Editors Seth Rice Gabby Sing sport@beaveronline.co.uk Social Editor Analía Ferreyra Sherry union@beaveronline.co.uk Collective Chair Andreas Redd collective@beaveronline.co.uk Collective members have contributed content three or more times for The Beaver.

Room 2.02 Saw Swee Hock Student Centre LSE Students’ Union London WC2A 2AE 020 7955 6705

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.

A New Constitution for a New Paper The Beaver - Special Elections Continues from page 1

Staff positions

New changes reflect practice of Senior Editor responsibility (as well as rights to hire and fire) staff positions. Staff positions include Deputy-Editors and Staff Writers, etc.

Executive Confidence The liberalisation of the democratic body also requires more control by the Executive to ensure control of the editorial procedures, to avoid losing control of operations. To that end, we introduce the executive confidence as a tool that establishes that all elected senior editors must have the confidence of the majority of the executive. Decisions to fire a senior editor can obviously be appealed to the society, the main democratic body.

These changes, among others, means that the paper will be running a special election.

Our beloved Managing Editor Bella will be quitting this week, which means that apart from a Beaver Editor, and a few others, we will also be electing a new Managing Editor.

See details for election details on this page.

Individuals who are running for executive positions must be current senior editors or gain approval to run from the Editorial Board. Due to the special circumstances of this election, the editorial board commits itself to approving anyone running for these positions. You may apply to more than role, but must fill in the form again to do so. The form is available on our website and Facebook page. Applications Close on Tuesday 10 at midnight

Managing Editor (Executive Position) The Managing Editor makes sure all non-editorial operations run smoothly in the paper. This mainly implies overseeing and being responsible for the work of copyeditors, the business and advertising team, the design team, and the distribution (online and in print) of the paper. If you have any questions about the role, contact Isabella Pojuner (i.a.pojuner@ lse.ac.uk).

Beaver Editor (Executive Position) The Beaver Editor is an Executive Team member.

They are responsible for and oversee the work of the Beaver Sections: News, Features, Comment. The Beaver Editor is expected to manage content and oversee investigations that the paper carries out in conjunction with the Executive Editor. If you have

any questions about the role, contact Morgan Fairless (m.fairless@lse.ac.uk).

Comment Editor (x2) The Comment Editors run the Comment section, which sources opinion pieces from around campus.

This involves editing the print version of the paper and other senior responsibilities. You will be a member of the editorial board if elected. If you have any questions about the role, contact Morgan Fairless (m.fairless@lse.ac.uk).

Hustings and voting will take place on Wednesday 11 at 5pm in the Media Centre. If you cannot make it to the hustings, please let us know in a note in your manifesto and we will read it out.

Voting will take place in person in the Media Centre on Wednesday 11 at 5pm. If you cannot make it to the hustings, please let us know and we will try to make available other ways of voting in accordance to SU guidelines.

Only members of the Beaver society can vote, get a free membership here: https://www.lsesu.com/organisation/thebeaver/

Bye Bye Beaver, Beaver Bye Bye Isabella Pojuner

Managing Editor

managing@beaveronline.

F

uck, well, I guess this is my last editorial. And of course, my last paper as a member of the editorial board. Probably the last thing I ever write at this desk.

This arrived sooner than I thought it would.

Last week I stepped down as Managing Editor to attend to my academic work, which I have somewhat neglected in the pursuit of journalism.

But whatever I do after university, these facts will always remain: I started at The Beaver in 2017 as a Staff Writer for News - well before I started classes at LSE; and I have learned more about myself and life from this office than the remaining sum of LSE’s physical parts. It has immeasurably improved my confidence; and given me something to hold onto when nothing else in my life felt certain.

It taught me the magic and stress of having a finger in too many pies, the expectation from friends to have an ear to the wall: and engaged so many parts of me I didn’t know existed. Most importantly, it has given

me some of the best friends I’ve ever had.

Time learns about us all. This office holds us as we all grow, as the paper morphs like a time-lapse, as the computers are turned on and hardly ever turned off.

As 2020 emerges, what holds us and how we learn about time changes. My personal resolution is to improve my memory in the hope I won’t forget as much. But the thing that’s never failed to collect my memories for me as the words I’ve written; and if the majority of my best memories have been made here, in this office, then I’ve entrusted The Beaver’s print and Morgan: thanks for picking up my slack online form with so much joy. I’ve also cried (double entendre), for always listening to the so many tears into the blue beanbags in the minor problems that plague my life and callnook by the window that you could probably ing me out for being an idiot, for the hugs, and extract my DNA and clone me - in case you being everyone’s friend - even when they’re guys ever want me back. annoying as hell.

I’d like to especially thank two of my best To every News Editor and Staff Writer of friends Morgan and Chris. the last two years: thanks for putting in the Chris: I’m so glad you joined the paper af- effort, however much of it you could. News is ter I nagged you and the rest of big sexies for hard for everyone but I hope you’ve had fun. a year to do so. Thanks for being my personal I’ve had the best time and learned the most memory storage unit. You have transformed from you guys. I hope I was a good News EdFlipside (even if it was at the expense of your itor. own humility) and it’s always the most beauNow, I’ll attempt to figure out how to be tiful. Our friendship has become professional an LSE student without being part of this - as as well as personal, and I’ve come to appreci- much, anyway. I know (investigative) journalPaget theforever. motion at the UGM ate that - this friendship is one of those thatAngus ism willand beBella partpresenting of my life makes life interesting.

Lent Term Events @ The Beaver specific dates and times t.b.a, watch this space

Training Sessions: Intro to Podcasting - 30/01 - 5pm How to Write a Headline - First Week LT InDesign & Illustration - Third Week LT Magazine Journalism - 2/03 - 18hs AND....

The Beaver’s Journalism Festival - A week of Journalism Events - Week of the 10th of February

News

News Editors Laura Zampini Elena Christaki-Hedrick Jeffrey Wang

Email us: news@beaveronline.co.uk

UGM Motion for Free Sanitary Products "Inquorate" Sanitary Products motion unable to proceed due to insufficient amount of votes

Rhea Malviya Staff Writer

T

he voting results for the final Union General Meeting motion of the year to provide free sanitary products in all LSE bathrooms emerged inquorate Saturday afternoon.

The motion proposed by Maria Golub, part-time Women’s Officer, received a total of 243 votes, 227 of which were for and 14 against while two abstained.

“I think there are a few reasons why the turn-out has been quite low,” Golub told the Beaver. “I think the important one was me not campaigning and advertising enough the vote. As I can see 93% who voted voted for, meaning that the majority of students just did not know about the motion happening.”

Golub also acknowledged that students may have lost faith in the idea after witnessing ongoing problems with the current provision offered in the SU. “I can see an ongoing problem with the absence of sanitary products in

SU building that despite my effort is not being solved,” she said. “The absence, obviously, impacts negatively my motion.”

Golub also acknowledged this at the UGM, where eight students, four part-time student officers, and three sabbatical officers assembled at the Arc to listen to her follow up on last year’s successful motion to provide free sanitary products to students in the SU. In response to concerns that some students may take more of the share of sanitary products provided, Golub said, “As long as people who cannot pay for menstrual products have access to them, there is no harm done."

Golub added, “That problem exists and it has happened a few times in the SU, I do acknowledge that.

But my answer to that is: if people do take it, it means that they cannot buy it, and if they cannot afford it, I think we should be happy that they do take it.”

“I saw it would be very logical to continue with [last year’s motion] because that was only the first step I believe. It's a bit strange if you're in Lincoln's Fields or in New Academic Building, that's quite far and you need to go to the SU to get [sanitary products]? And also if [they are]

in the Student’s Union, that applies only to students because faculty and staff don't usually go there,” Golub added.

The Women’s Officer told the Beaver that she is perplexed at LSE’s lack of steadfastness in addressing an issue that other schools around the world have already tackled. She said, “It's in all universities in Scotland. My friend, she studies in St. Andrews and she told me that they have individual kits...so it looks to me like we in the LSE are in the Middle Ages.”

Scotland dedicated five million pounds to fighting period poverty in Scottish education at all levels in 2018. Horizontal comparisons aside, it is an inevitable part of the female experience that does not get enough attention, Golub explained.

She added, “I think it’s something about the visibility because we need to speak about it openly because that's part of the human body, what students and women experience. It isn't something that we choose to do.”

Golub is also adamant that sanitary products are provided in both men’s and women’s bathrooms. She said, “LSE is a very inclusive space and there are people who self-identify as female and who may also

represent transgenders [sic.] and we do need to include everyone. The usage in the male bathroom will be less than in female bathrooms, but it does not mean that we should not put them there.”

Laura Dowling, a third-year International Relations student present at the UGM, supported the motion because of her own experience in dealing with the added pressure of always having to be prepared in order to avoid additional costs. “Obviously I identify as a woman, I have periods myself...I go to the shop to buy it and it’s like “really like I got this stuff at home” so I'm buying again just because I don't have access to them when I forget them at home,” said Dowling.

Speaking about whether she will continue the campaign, Golub said, “I will remain active on the matter as I could clearly see a very positive response. So, I will continue to campaign. I am now getting in touch with the Gender Equality Steering Group, Departments, and the Estates as it is, clearly, the issue that concerns not only students but faculty and staff respectively. And I would like to thank everyone who voted.”

Joseph Stiglitz Shares Insights on Why The Economic System has Failed America Nobel Prize Winner outlines his "progressive capitalist" approach to a full audience

Nora Lorenz Staff Writer

N

obel-prize winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz held a public lecture at LSE last Wednesday, 4 December. Organised by the LSE US Centre and chaired by Prof. Nicholas Stern, the director of LSE Grantham Institute, the lecture was titled “Is progressive capitalism the answer to America’s problems?”

Listeners across all disciplines packed the Sheikh Zayed Theatre as well as another live-streaming lecture hall. Tickets sold out within half an hour after release and long queues formed in front of the venue.

Joseph Stiglitz is a Professor at Columbia University and former chief economist at the World Bank. He is well-known for his extensive work on income distribution, asset risk management, corporate governance and international trade. Most importantly, Stiglitz attracts such large audiences because his work speaks to the heart of what many people understand as today’s most pressing societal and economic challenges.

Stiglitz began his lecture by laying out the nature of America’s current problems. According to him, there is justified widespread discontent with the political and economic system in the country. He explained that benefits of the growth that occurred in the last decades went almost exclusively to those at the top of the income distribution, while health declined and disparities in life expectancy between the rich and poor increased.

Symptoms such as the persistence

of racial inequalities, declining numbers of young and innovative firms and a lack of moral compass in America’s largest corporations, lead Stiglitz to conclude that the “neoliberal experiment” has failed.

He warned that technological and climate change might be exacerbate these issues.

The failure of neoliberal policy-making and concomitant perception that political and economic systems are rigged led Stiglitz to search for an alternative. His “progressive capitalism” approach includes rewriting basic economic rules to create a fairer economy. According to his explanation, this would be achieved through an increase in public expenditure to deliver where markets fail, fair and efficient taxation as well as reinvigorating the welfare state. Advocating for a “new social contract”, the Professor named Labour's “Green New Deal” as a prime example of what he aims for.

While the time left for questions from the audience was short, LSE students were eager to critically engage with the Nobel Prize winner.

“I am just not sure how this is applicable to Europe and its welfare systems?” questioned a sceptical LSE student, receiving nods and support from other listeners. Others pointed out that freer markets have benefitted countries like China and India enormously. Some members of the audience were interested in the role of corporations in Stiglitz’ model of “progressive capitalism.”

3

The News Team Thomas Chau Deputy Editor

Raphaelle Camarcat Staff Writer

Meher Pandey Staff Writer

Florit Shoihet Staff Writer

Nora Lorenz Staff Writer

Angbeen Abbas Staff Writer

Kevin Morris Staff Writer

Grace Chapman Staff Writer

Thahmina Begum Staff Writer

Join the News Team!

Join our News Team as a staff writer and help us report and investigate LSE news.

For more information, visit beaveronline.co.uk/vacancies

Send us any tips to: news@beaveronline.co.uk

4

News

Tuesday 10 December 2019 | The Beaver

LSE Student Wins Princess Diana Legacy Award First year student wins prestigious humanitarian award for charity work

Elena Christaki-Hedrick News Editor

D

aniel Lawes, a first-year International Relations and History student at LSE has won the Princess Diana Legacy Award in recognition of his social action and charity work.

Lawes received the award for his work founding and leading the non-profit organisation YouthPolitics UK, which according to the organisation’s website is, “dedicated to engaging young people into the political process and providing them with a platform to express their views.”

Lawes told LSE Media Relations, “[YouthPolitics UK] now has over 60 volunteers, has trained over 14,000 young people from low income neighbourhoods across the country and has bridged the gap between young people and decision makers, with figures such as Theresa May, Lord Heseltine, Alastair Campbell all getting involved or planning to get involved with our work.”

The award was also in recognition of Lawes’ work with youth mental health, leading the #OnMyMind

Photo courtesy of Daniel Lawes

campaign which aims to lobby the Department of Health for additional funding for youth mental health services.

Lawes was presented the award

by Princess Diana's brother, Earl Spencer, at the Royal Naval College, to then spend four days in intensive leadership training with 19 other young leaders from across the world.

The training included a reception with Prince William at Kensington Palace. On the reception, Lawes told LSE Media Relations, “I took the opportunity to discuss with him some of the greatest issues facing our generation, from the impact of Brexit to constructive solutions to climate change.”

He added, “I also had the privilege of meeting some of the most inspiring people such as the Executive Director of UN Women, Executives from HSBC and British Airways, and members of the House of Lords (meeting Baroness Lawrence was a particular highlight). The most inspirational element of the experience, however, was meeting the other award recipients from across the world who had some incredible stories.”

If you would like to get involved with YouthPolitics UK, you can contact Daniel on D.lawes@lse.ac.uk.

@beaveronline

www.beaveronline.co.uk

www.facebook.com/thebeaveronline/

Panelists at LSE Discuss Chilean Crisis LSESU Grimshaw Club Experts speak on employment and income, health and education

Thahmina Begum Staff Writer

O

n Thursday 28 November after over a month of ongoing protests in Chile, LSE’s International Inequalities Institute co-hosted a panel event with the Centre for Social Conflict and Cohesion Studies (COES) titled ‘Understanding Chilean Unrest: inequalities, social conflict and political change in contemporary Chile.’

The speakers included Professor Emmanuelle Barozet from the University of Chile and COES Associate Researcher, Dr. Diana Kruger.

The event was chaired by Professor Kirsten Sehnbruch, a Distinguished Policy Fellow at LSE’s International Inequalities Institute.

Dr. Kruger kickstarted the discussion, providing the audience with samples of data demonstrating a snapshot of the Chilean social gap since 2017. She presented slides on three main areas of contention in Chile: employment and income, health, and education.

Dr. Kruger claimed that part of the reason for the recent social uprisings is because the inequality in Chile has not changed. The median income is approximately £400 per month, which undoubtedly impacts the average Chilean’s well-being and future pensions.

Dr. Kruger explained that when there is an economic shock, workers who have salaries and contracts are protected by the law while those who are self-employed and whose contracts do not guarantee any form of social protection suffer. According to her, Chileans in the lower

20% of distributed income are often self-employed or work precarious jobs.

Moving on to health, Dr. Kruger drew attention to Fondo Nacional de Salud (FONASA), the financial entity responsible for health funds in Chile. Approximately 85% of Chileans are dependent on the public system for their healthcare. Only 12% rely on private care, most of whom are within the top 20% of distributed income.

Professor Sehnbruch claimed that Chileans who are currently waiting for government and public services for their healthcare are now resorting to self-funding or taking out loans to move to private. The problem with this is that when there is an economic shock or a shock of any kind, people are left far more vulnerable and have little to fall back on apart from their family and friends. This is one of the dire predicaments that is also motivating the protests, according to Professor Sehnbruch.

In the last portion of the talk, Dr. Kruger spoke on an uneven schooling system. She explained that having achieved universal coverage across all income levels in primary school and almost entirely in secondary school, one would assume Chile was a success story in the region.

However, Dr. Kruger revealed that problems persist in higher education. After the passing of the free tuition law in 2016, more young people from lower-income households have been able to attend university.

However, Dr Kruger explained the new system segregated those who can afford to attend private schools (and perform better) from those who attend public schools (and perform poorly). The increasingly segregated school system creates resentiment among those who do not

have access to the educational benefits enjoyed by private schools.

Providing further insight into the educational challenges Chile has faced, Professor Emmanuelle Barozet highlighted how, despite more people accessing higher edcation in the last few years, Chile’s productive system has not been able to adapt.

When discussing the high level of violence during the protests, including deaths, rape and missing people, Professor Barozet said: “Chileans are used to it…this form of repression and violence is not new in Chile.” The distinguishing factor of the most recent protests, according to Professor Barozet, is that Chilean protestors are demanding a new constitution.

Ending on a positive note, Dr. Kruger said that compared to its Latin American counterparts, Chile does not have a significant debt programme with international organisations such as the International Monetary Fund and thus has much more leverage and choice in its decision making when attempting to solve these issues. "Hope has not been eroded from the country yet,” she said.

Register online to contribute beaveronline.co.uk

Launches Symposium Grimshaw provides an informal forum for students to discuss the changing face of international affairs

Florit Shoihet Staff Writer

L

SESU's oldest society, LSESU Grimshaw, launched on 25 November a Symposium on ‘The Changing Face of International Affairs.’ The event featured a series of networking afternoons and evening lectures, along with interactive student events, such as the Multinational Manic Memeing event and a society treasure hunt.

The event tackled different topics of global relevance such as technology challenges, security issues and climate change. Grimshaw hopes that the symposium will mark the beginning of a new tradition that it can be held every November.

Joshua Weinert, Grimshaw Club President, and Yasmina O’Sullivan, Executive Speaker Officer, explained to the Beaver that their aim was to keep events approachable and interactive. “There is an excellent lectures program at LSE, and we are not trying to compete with them,” Weinert told The Beaver.

“What we want to provide is informal talks. It has a lot more comfort to students to ask the questions they want to experts and to break this unnecessary barrier between students and experts. We want them to feel like these experts are not gods,” O’Sullivan added.

The Grimshaw Society also emphasised that the symposium was stu-

dent-led. “Our speakers’ team really pushed for student chairs. We don’t need to have the biggest names: we want to learn and we want to be involved – whether that be emailing speakers, learning communication language, organising the event ourselves and dealing with this administrative pain or preparing the interviews, doing the research and then chairing and lead the discussion.

Students can do it.”

Symposium lecturers included: Andrew Norton, the Director of the International Institute for Environment and Development, Anthony Finkelstein, the Chief Scientific Advisor for National Security to HM Government, Dr Jill Stuart, an expert in the politics, ethics and law of outer space exploration and exploitation based at LSE, Alina Averchenkova, a Grantham Institute Distinguished Policy Fellow and Ex-Global Director for Climate Change and Carbon at KPMG, Dianna Melrose, a former Ambassador to Cuba and High Commissioners to Tanzania, among others.

Dianna Melrose shared her thoughts on being one of a very few women in top diplomatic circles, the flexibility of diplomacy under different UK governments in Cuba and the future of the Commonwealth.

Alina Averchenkova talked about the need for young professionals from varied fields, such as law, economics and management, in managing issues such as climate change.

The Grimshaw Club, in collaboration with Beaver Sounds, will post podcasts from the talks on its website.

www.beaveronline.co.uk | @beaveronline

Email us: news@beaveronline.co.uk

5

'Hands Off LSE' Holds Week of Events Meher Pandey Staff Writer

O

n 2 December, Hands Off LSE launched a week of events to raise awareness for sexual violence and initiate discussions on campus about how to support victims both institutionally and personally. Events included panel discussions with academics and the LSE Athletics Union, a creative workshop with My Body Back Project, and a fundraiser for Rape Crisis.

Ella Holmes, Hands Off LSE organiser, said the series of events was born out of conversations between LSESU Women in Politics Society and Masters student Sara Laursen Hald last year. Hald told The Beaver, “The #MeToo movement opened up a wider, and much-needed, discussion about sexual violence and rape culture. However, too often survivors still feel silenced and don’t know where to turn for help, especially at universities. This week is all about empowering sexual assault survivors to let them know that they are supported and loved.”

The week began eight days after a UGM motion to improve LSE’s supporting infrastructure for survivors of sexual assault, including hiring a permanent, salaried, sexual assault counsellor in the EDI and improving signposting for support services. The motion was passed with an overwhelming majority of almost 90% of voters in favour.

The panel on Monday, 2 Decem-

ber, featured Dr Suki Ali, associate professor at the Department of Sociology, Dr Taylor Sherman, co-chair of the Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Reps Network at LSE, and Tracy Wise, founder of Safe Gigs for Women. They discussed the impacts of the #MeToo movement and how it offered new systems of accountability through social media, particularly on university campuses. Dr Ali emphasised that although #MeToo created an important space for support and solidarity, it is only “a balm” and not the whole solution.

She said it is important to remember that courts and other institutions often let down survivors of sexual violence and that they need systemic change. Dr Sherman said that change also needs to start from the ground up, by teaching children about consent and their right to set their own boundaries.

On Tuesday, during the creative workshop, around 20 people created ‘Notes of Love’ for My Body Back Project. Attendees expressed messages of support for survivors through writing and artwork.

Their work will be displayed in My Body Back clinics which provide a range of services including cervical screenings and maternity support for survivors of sexual violence.

Wednesday was a day of fundraising for Rape Crisis. Their centres provide specialist, independent, and confidential services for women and girls who have experienced any form of sexual violence, across England and Wales. Hands Off LSE sold baked goods outside the SU and after LSESU Drama Society’s production of Emilia. They raised over £200 and plan to continue their bake sales into next week.

The last event was a panel on Thursday on ‘Female Safety in the Athletics Union’ featuring Laura

Goddard, Lacrosse Club Captain and proposer of the UGM motion to improve LSE’s provisions for survivors of sexual assault, Charly Brady, former Women’s Rugby Club Captain, Sam Rowlands, AU Engagement Officer, Charlie Baister, Men’s Rugby Club Captain, Harry Barber, AU President, and David Gordon, LSESU Community and Welfare Officer.

Ella Holmes said the event was an important way for Hands Off LSE to facilitate discussions of accountability between AU members and their executive, “We wanted to be able to tell AU members that [their executive] care about this issue, this is on their radar… At the same time, I wanted to push them, have their ideas open to scrutiny, and have people suggest their own ideas as

“

It's important that we continue this and not let this be just one week when we talk about sexual assault and then move on with our lives

“

LSE academics and AU members contribute to the push for better services for sexual

well.” There was an anonymous suggestions box in the room.

The panel discussed the range of ways in which the AU can improve female safety, both on an institu-

tional level, by empowering AU members to campaign for changes, reforming the complaints procedure for sexual assault and harassment survivors and witnesses, providing active bystander and ally training, and on an interpersonal level by changing AU culture.

Expanding on the reform to AU complaints procedure, Sam Rowlands said, “We’re looking at introducing a tiered approach and giving people a lot of different access points depending on what they feel comfortable with. That fell by the wayside over the summer but we are currently lobbying within the SU to make that change because next year we won’t be sitting here… It’s about making sure that this conversation goes somewhere tangible.”

Panel attendees expressed their concerns regarding diversity in the AU and the role this plays in toxic lad culture. Charly Brady expressed similar concerns, “The AU is structurally not diverse… its why there has not been a behaviour change.

I really appreciate the fact that the men’s teams are hosting consent workshops, but after this what changed? Have men’s teams become much more diverse?” She emphasised the positive impact of actively working to diversify the Women’s Rugby team on its culture of safety, accountability, and open communication.

Laura Goddard said, “When I was trying to get the word out about the motion, what was one of the most positive aspects was the number of people who I didn’t expect to reach out did reach out. For the first time since being at LSE, I felt this lovely community sense. It's important that we continue this and not let this be just one week when we talk about sexual assault and then move on with our lives. Every person de-

serves to feel safe, and that’s not just a soundbite, people deserve to feel safe and they haven’t felt safe.”

When asked about how LSESU will be lobbying LSE to execute Goddard’s motion, David Gordon said he had been in a meeting with LSE management earlier that day, including Joanne Hay, Deputy Chief Operating Officer at LSE, “Basically all of the people required in a room to make the motion happen [were there]. We’ve been having a conversation about some of the more financially difficult things in the motion, that is, hiring a full-time salaried sexual assault counsellor. They have a model that they are working towards that is different from what was proposed in the motion. We want more holistic support while they are seeking someone parttime.”

Ella Holmes said, “Our main aim is to get this independent sexual violence support worker instated by at least the end of next term. We are absolute on our demands and we won’t take anything less.”

David Gordon assured panel attendees that students’ demands will not be compromised, “If we don’t get the changes we want quickly enough, we’ll be coming back to you guys to help us rally the cry.

When people come out with banners they don’t know what to do and the money flows faster than you can imagine.”

“Now we want to transform Hands Off LSE into more of a collective, perhaps model ourselves on the LSE Climate Emergency Collective. Since we have had interest from academics, students, and people in the SU, we want to have a collaborative approach. We will be looking at more aggressive action to prompt these conversations along,” said Holmes.

LSESU Athletics Union announces Fight LSESU Societies Celebrate the Holidays Night Line-Up LSESU AU members get ready to face off in annual boxing event.

Illustration by Raphaelle Camarcat

Students embrace the festive spirit before term ends.

Kevin Morris

Angbeen Abbas

Staff Writer

Staff Writer

A

L

ast Monday, the LSESU Athletics Union (AU) announced the much anticipated lineup for the 2020 edition of Fight Night.

The match ups for the following year’s edition are: Mani Dhami (Boxing) vs Abu Miah (Boxing) Jorge Stevenson (Men’s Rugby) vs Edmund Laing (Men’s Football) Ceri Doyle (Netball) vs Bhavyya Sharma (Women’s Rugby) Raúl van Kleef (Boxing) vs Mike Losavio (Boxing) Samir Patel (Hockey) vs Ewan Hughes (Boxing) Bouchera Abaakil (Netball) vs Alyssa Chong (Boxing) Inga Bagepalli (Boxing) vs Marine Gleizes (Boxing) Stéphanie Zdc (Ski) vs Bailey Nghiem (Kitesurf and wakeboard) Maxime Robelin (Boxing) vs Ubaid Khaliq (Cricket) Phil Saunes (Men’s Rugby) vs Evan Li (Boxing)

Fight Night is an AU-run night of boxing matches between different sports teams within the AU. Last year, it was hosted at York Hall, an international boxing venue, and over a thousand people attended.

Alyssa Chong, one of the selected participants said, “I decided to sign up for Fight Night with the goal to improve my boxing skill and technique. I hope that, by the end of this, I’ll come out a better boxer, regardless if I win or lose. I think Fight Night will be a great watch this year as everyone fighting is hungry to win. It would be great to see people come to support!”

Illustration by Raphaelle Camarcat

s Michaelmas Term gives way to Christmas, many of the LSESU’s Student Societies prepare to observe the winter holidays by hosting events and activities on campus. Ranging from cultural to religious, and spanning different faith traditions, LSESU societies hope to provide a host of options to students looking to celebrate on campus before the term ends.

On 9 December, LSESU Nordic Society hosted a Christmas dinner with “heaps of herring and schnapps” according to society President Anna Johansson, a second-year Politics and History student from Sweden.

She added that for those interested there will be plenty of traditional St. Lucia’s Day celebrations in London complete with candles, choirs and hymns.

The LSESU Jewish Society also commemorated the holidays with food, which according to one member “is pretty much the MO for any Jewish holiday.” Chanukkah, which falls at the same time as Christmas

this year, remembers the Machabees’ revolt against the Seleucids in 166 BCE and Temple Menorah which remained miraculously lit for eight days after the Machabees’ victory until more oil could be acquired and consecrated. Many traditional foods for this holiday thus incorporate oil in some way to remember the miracle of oil, and the LSESU Jewish Society hosted a Chanukkah party on 9 December open to everyone with an offering of doughnuts and fried potato pancakes known as latkes.

Likewise, the LSESU Christian Union hopes to spread the spirit of the holidays on campus. The Society will hold a stall to provide hot chocolate and lead caroling on Tuesday, 10 December, while hosting discussions with students about what Christmas means to them.

Two days later, on 12 December, the Christian Union will be holding a meeting to share the story of Christmas. "We believe it's a story which brings joy to all people,” Yasha Lai, the Society's Social Media Officer, told The Beaver. Following the meeting, the LSESU Christian Union will lead a group to the Southbank Christmas Market to continue the festivities.

Comment 6

Comment Editors Samuel Caveen Lucy Knight Michael Shapland

Tuesday 10 December

Email us: comment@beaveronline.co.uk

Thatcher’s LSE: the Queen of Capitalism Thatcher has become a spectre of the public eye, especially on university campuses. Yet her legacy lives on, even amongst those who loathe her. LSE is a Thatcherite institution. We should celebrate this instead of turning away from the truth.

a university so at“Intuned to the psychology

Michael Shapland Comment Editor

L

her premiership a clear idea as to what the UK should become.

“

Thatcher brought with her premiership a clear idea as to what the UK should become. This vision promoted personal striving and ownership, and independence against the force of collectivism.

Whilst this may seem incongruent with LSE’s own values, running against the rhetoric of the majority

of the bodies and societies within the SU or many of the articles and papers its academics produce, LSE’s ‘silent majority’ is largely Thatcherite in nature.

This ‘Thatcherite energy’ can first be detected in the personal striving and independence within the LSE’s student body. The spirit of enterprise is something that runs through each student, from society leaders to internship applicants and even participants in political societies. Such an independent spirit has in part lead to LSE having the highest-paid graduates out of any UK university. In spurring the change that lead to the Big Bang of the mid1980s, Thatcher ensured the City of London is the financial powerhouse

children, “AsweThatcher’s are gifted with an economy that we can turn towards on our journey of self-improvement.

“

“Thatcher brought with

of success, many of us unknowingly channel Thatcher’s power.

“

SE’s roots lie in grand redistributive socialist schemes, social justice, and an intellectual movement that sought to permanently redefine Britain’s treatment of the working poor. Yet, since its conception, alongside the Fabians and the charitable, LSE has seen another cultural strand emerge: that of the investment bankers, finance gurus and city hopefuls. This vast segment of the LSE population can be traced back in spirit to Hayek, an LSE professor during the 1940s and 50s, and his famous upholding laissez-faire economics against the more interventionist Keynes.

Such clashes not only cemented the LSE’s place as one of the UK’s top academic bastions but also laid the groundwork for the vision of the UK’s most infamous prime minister: Margaret Thatcher. It is in tracing the roots of the LSE’s history that we not only attain a resounding view for what the universities ethos should entail going into the future, but also an insight into the power of Thatcher’s vision.

it is today: enabling LSE’s top cohort to grind their way to the top and attain some of the most lucrative graduate jobs in the world. As Thatcher’s children, we are gifted with an economy that we can turn towards

on our journey of self-improvement.

This alerts one to Thatcher’s final tie to the LSE: Thatcher was a born winner. Becoming the first female prime minister, serving three times and having won two landslide victories during her time in power, Thatcher was no stranger to winning big. In turning the UK, previously crumbling economically under the catastrophic tenure of Labour leader James Callaghan, into an economic powerhouse, Thatcher revealed to our nation just how far its winning spirit remained. This was further evident in Britain’s victory of Argentina in the 1982 Falklands War, where Thatcher guided Britain’s troops to retain their overseas territory, resulting in a surge of national pride.

Part of the beauty of Thatcher’s message was in its simplicity, in its reduction of human life to simple binaries. In a university so attuned to the psychology of success, many of us unknowingly channel Thatcher’s power. To wake up early, to eat healthily, to have a vibrant social life are all Thatcherite lifestyle choices.

In truly caring about those less fortunate, the LSE Fabians amongst us must instead seek to utilize a system that has lifted the greatest amount of people out of poverty, restored British pride, and transformed the world economy into one which allows hard workers to reap the benefits of economic and political freedom. In appreciating Thatcher’s greatness, we not only begin to understand the deeply planted roots that have spurred generations of LSE students onto fame and success, but also the underpinnings of human nature. Capitalism is a beautiful thing: and Thatcher’s power was in revealing its truth to us all.

Above: a jubilant Iron Lady

Ignorance is not Bliss: a Case for Caring In a response to ‘Inside the London School of Brexit-Bashing’ (Issue 906) Ross Lloyd argues the fallacy at the heart of the article writer’s Brexit argument, linking it to other cultural Brexit developments.

Editorial Assistant

A

recent and frankly obligatory rebuttal was offered a few weeks ago in response to a Comment piece written by a not-unpowerful member of this newspaper. I admire the effort taken, however boring it must have been, to point out the glaring errors, poor wording, and offensive imagery used by this slipshod piece of ‘work’. The central annoyance of this piece is that it makes no pretension of mounting an actual attack on LSE campus culture or the hive of academia.

You can spend time pointing out its flaws, but in doing that you

Simon “HixButcall having it “Embarrass-

ingly poor journalism” on Twitter, cannot be taken lightly.

“

Ross Lloyd

miss the point its inception.

It’s quite rare for there to be a tangible campus response to controversial opinions expressed in this paper. Do not be mistaken it has happened before. The No Melanin, no opinion ‘controversy’ stands out. But having Simon Hix call it “Embarrassingly poor journalism” on Twitter, cannot be tak-

en lightly.

Generally speaking, reacting to ‘bad’ opinions isn’t that productive. It would be pretty weird to demand that opinions in comment be i) your own ii) uncontroversial, as that fundamentally misunderstands the point of publishable comment pieces. Going further than that, Brexit is obviously a hot button issue that is bound to stir up controversy. But that doesn’t explain the offense people have felt from the article. Despite what failed ‘change my mind’ stands and muckrakers would have us think, universities are probably the places best equipped to deal with controversial ideas. Academics disagree with each other for a living. No amount of inaccuracy or contro-

Above: an unimpressed Simon Hix

versial opinion accounts for how poorly the comment was received.

My first reaction when reading the piece was how similar it was to the surreal ‘Wetherspoon magazine’ offered free at every pub for miles around. Tim Martin, owner of said pub franchise and popu-

lar Brexiteer, has newspaper columnists and academics write on all things Brexit. They offer their opinions, tending to be sceptical of the Brexit-feel-good spirit Martin loves to foster. But that isn’t enough! Martin scrawls his opinions, more often expressed as attacks on the elites and pessimists on the top of the page, offering ‘the other side of the debate’.

Tim Martin may be stupid, but that’s been done to death, and it misses the point. Martin doesn’t pretend to address the points made before he offers his takedown. It is sufficient to label his opponent a pessimist, or an out of touch elite and move on. The writer of 'Inside the London School of Brexit-Bashing' does the same.

www.beaveronline.co.uk | @thebeaveronline

Email us: comment@beaveronline.co.uk

7

Christmas Election Special: LSE Students Share their Voting Intentions under the Tories.” - Holly Harwood, third year BSc Politics and International Relations

Matilda Whitehead Regular Contributor

Liberal Democrats:

A

Conservative: “I’m bored of Brexit, I’m sure everyone else is too. Anything but a vote for the Conservatives is a vote for two more referendums over the next year. One on Scotland, one on Labour’s ‘Brexit’ deal that has yet to emerge. Lets have less bickering and division please!” - Hamish Mundell, MSc Regulation and President of LSESU Conservative Society “I am voting Conservative to get Brexit done and end this divisive period in our politics. Once the terms of our withdrawal from the EU are finalised, we will be able to move the political debate elsewhere and focus on other priorities.” - Anonymous, second year BSc Politics and History, “I’m a classical liberal. The Tories are the most committed to a smaller state.” - Anonymous, first year LLB Bachelor of Laws “Exciting manifesto off the back

of stringent fiscal responsibility.” Genevieve Kirk, second year LLB Bachelor of Laws Labour: “They are the only solution to the deep rooted inequality and class system in this country.” - Chloe Forletta, second year LLB Bachelor of Laws and co-Chair of LSESU Labour and Cooperative Society

“Labour’s

policy proposals are best equipped to support the vulnerable.”

“

else is too. Anything but a vote for the Conservatives is a vote for two more referendums

“Pro-remain, anti-populist, moderate.” - Alex Mapletoft, third year BSc Government

“With Labour, whilst their policy platform is far from perfect (but which manifesto is?), they will ultimately restore vital funding for our public services, invest properly in infrastructure, implement a green new

deal, and begin to tackle the regional inequalities that lie at the heart of this nation’s tearing social fabric.

Make no mistake, due to the surge in public spending and investment under Labour, the economy will be much more prosperous under a Labour government!” - Ciaran Marshall, second year BSc Economics “Labour’s policy proposals are best equipped to support the vulnerable.” - Jack Bisset, second year “I’m backing them as a party keen to bring about real domestic change, tackling the inequality created by nine years of austerity.

One thing is abundantly clear – Boris Johnson does not deserve to be Prime Minister, his party does not deserve a majority in this election, and their contemptuous approach must be challenged. ” - Sam Rippon, third year BSc Government and History.

“I don’t want more people to die

“Liberalism.” - Anonymous, second year BSc Sociology “We all have duties to one another as members of society which outweigh the rights we have to property – any Nozickian, Ayn Randian screeching about taxation being theft is so individualist it’s sickening.

Who would not mind paying another £10 a month in the knowledge that there will be one fewer homeless person on the street, a child able to get a better education, lower rates of crime, and greater equality and community spirit among the populus. Oh, and Brexit.” - Anonymous, third year BSc Politics and Philosophy

[The Lib Dems are] “Pro-remain, anti-populist, moderate.

“

“I’m bored of Brex“ it, I’m sure everyone

“The most important issues for me are immigration and asylum. I want my party to preserve Freedom of Movement across Europe, and to open Britain’s borders to people from around the world. Asylum seekers deserve the right to work, and freedom from arbitrary, indefinite detention.” - Aadil Khan, President of LSESU Liberal Democrats

Picture: Christina Ivey

s an 18-24 year old, turning up to the ballot box might be even more important than what party you actually end up crossing the box for on the ballot paper itself. The logic is simple – as long as young people are the smallest group of voters, they will be last on the political agenda. A party’s primary purpose is to get elected – if they don’t think young people will make a significant difference to that, they won’t put them first. It’s no surprise that the government spends more on elderly than primary care when the former’s vote share is almost double that of young people.

Even if you hate every candidate on the ballot so intensely that you cannot bring yourself to vote for one, actively abstain by spoiling your ballot!

By sitting at home and passively abstaining, no one will hear your silent ‘protest’ and no one will know how utterly disenfranchised you are.

If you want to protest and express your dissatisfaction with the options put in front of you, then do that!

Protest! But I can tell you for a fact that unless you turn up and do it actively no politician will give care.

The options are pretty bleak, but maybe that makes it all the more important for you to show up and actively express your dissatisfaction with the options put forward. If you don’t, you give them no reason to change.

That being said, let’s look at which party LSE students are voting for, and why.

“The Lib Dems are the only main party with a clear, progressive, credible manifesto – focusing on early-years education, reversing welfare cuts, a clear path to a green future, and a fair voting system. Out of the three main parties, their plans will do the most for the neediest in our society.” - Anonymous, MSc Economic History.

Answers have been edited for clarity and length

“

LSE Should Join the University Impact Rankings Executive Editor

L

SE’s 2030 Strategy has set out several goals for the next decade. In marketing their strategy, the university has made an effort to stress the importance of “educating for impact”. The university also prides itself in its role as a shaper of public opinion and policy around the world. The Times Higher Education University Impact Rankings are the perfect opportunity for us to prove our worth in the world stage, or at least measure it.

Launched last year, the rankings assess universities in how they work to follow the UN’s Sustain-

able Development Goals such as good health and wellbeing, decent work and economic growth, and climate action. The argument to do this is that institutions can help reach these goals in four ways: “1.

Research – by searching for new solutions and knowledge related to the SDGs 2. Stewardship – by being responsible for their own consumption and sustainability 3. Outreach – by working directly with their communities, regions and nations 4. Teaching – by inculcating a sustainable mindset in their students and alumni”.

Last year, more than 500 universities enrolled and submitted data to Times Higher, the organisation that runs the ranking. The University of Auckland tops the

ranking, with the University of Manchester and King’s College sitting third and fifth respectively.

LSE shines by its absence, despite its world recognition as a research institution that influences policy and politics around the world.

As in any university, it is difficult for universities to steer research top-down. This is especially true in such a decentralised university as LSE. However, LSE prides itself on its rankings, and academics seem to respond to rankings when designing research and courses. Committing the university to be judged under the guidelines of the Sustainable Development Goals would help steer us towards greater impact in some of the most important issues facing the world

“

Committing the university to be judged under the guidelines of the Sustainable Development Goals would help steer us towards greater impact

“

Morgan Fairless

today.

The Beaver asked LSE why it had not enrolled in the rankings, and in a statement the university responded: “We support the idea of measuring universities’ contributions to sustainability, and are considering participation in future rankings.

Without being specific about enrolling in the ranking, LSE added “We would like to develop new measures of impact that enable better comparisons across the full spectrum of disciplines. We hope to be able to contribute to a discussion about this, including with the Times Higher, in the near future.”

8 Comment

Tuesday 10 December 2019 | The Beaver

Commonwealth: Common Vote?

Features Editor Annabelle Jarrett argues that Commonwealth voting rights are arbitrary, revisiting who should be allowed to vote in UK elections.

Features Editor

T

he UK is having an election on December 12 as all of LSE, the UK, and even the wider world are no doubt likely aware. If not, well – insert “living under a rock” joke here. Among all the media scandals, leadership debates, and sound bites, one aspect of the election has gone relatively untouched – Commonwealth citizens’ ability to vote.

When the election was announced, I was more than a little surprised to discover that I could register to vote, holding citizenship from a country that forms part of the Commonwealth. Being (another) Australian in London, I am of course no stranger to the perceived camaraderie between our two countries by citizens on both sides – real or not. As for a broader Commonwealth unity, however, that’s another matter.

Being able to vote in the British general election as a citizen of a Commonwealth country is in many ways a reinforcing of the Commonwealth as a viable entity worthy of upholding. This is worth a closer look. Nearly all of the Commonwealth nations are former British colonies, a fact that feels difficult to separate completely from the organisation today. In fact, outside of this historical memory, it’s hard to find another key point of unity between the member countries. In the Australian context, this fact sticks to the teeth of most, if not all conversations on politics. The “discovery” and subsequent colonising of Australia by the British Empire in 1770, and then from 1788, marked the beginning of a campaign of mass violence, massacre, and dispossession of the indigenous populations, the effects of which are still very much present today. Terra Nullius, ‘nobody’s land’, was the principle used for the British occupation of indigenous territory,

@beaveronline

and has since rightfully been overturned as fiction. Sovereignty has never been ceded by Indigenous Australians. The health, education, and employment attainments of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders remain far below those of non-Indigenous Australians. The rates of Indigenous incarceration too are a national disgrace. The path to reconciliation has proved painful, to say the least, and far

“discovery” “andthesubsequent colonising of Australia by the British Empire in 1770, and then from 1788, marked the beginning of a campaign of mass violence

“

Annabelle Jarrett

from over. Non-Indigenous Australians such as myself continue to benefit from colonialism and its legacies, both at home and abroad.

It is for reasons such as this that ideologies of Empire, such as those working through the promotion of the Commonwealth, feel hollow at best and dangerous at worst.

Given I’ve been granted this opportunity to vote, I like to think that I will make an informed decision, taking the responsibility of having a say in the direct future of where I live seriously. I’ve grown up within a system with mandatory voting, and naturally, registered here in the UK upon realising I could. This is all besides the point, however. The point instead is this: what does it mean when someone who has been in this country for three months, with no family living here, can vote, simply based on their passport, while others with an inarguably larger ‘stake’ cannot? A friend’s father has lived here for more than 20 years, has

www.beaveronline.co.uk

two British children, and a British wife, and is unable to vote. Another friend cannot vote himself, despite growing up here since age 10.

By granting me the right to execute my say in the future of this country, while excluding others such as these, solely upon the rationale that my status as a Commonwealth subject is reason enough, what legacies does this reinforce?

This is not a call for less voting rights – if anything, a New Zealand-style system in which all permanent residents are entitled to vote seems the most appropriate and fair. This is not even a call for the rejection of cultural and legislative ties between particular countries, although whether this should happen to the exclusion of others is again worth examining. Is the Commonwealth something that we are all, British and non-British, proud of? Can it be separated from its original meaning? Let’s just say that I’m not so sure.

www.facebook.com/thebeaveronline/

Explanation Rebellion: the Art of Debate Michael Shapland Comment Editor

Extinction Rebellion is not a political movement: The first frame we shall analyse is that of ‘Extinction rebellion not being a political movement.

Hamza: (On scientists) [do you think XR] politicize[s] this epistemic community?

Lunnon: [XR] is not a political movement (crowd laughs)…I be-

Illustrations: Matthew Bradbury

W

hat happens when one hosts a debate where all participants are largely united in belief, politics and purpose? On Thursday, December 5th, the LSE found out.

The LSE Debate Societies Fabian series undertook a largely structural shift from its head to head Brexit debate earlier during Michaelmas Term. The debate was formed around the statement ‘Extinction Rebellion has done more harm than good’. The three participants during the debate where Dr. Eleanor Chowns, a Green Party Member of the European Parliament, Dr. Emily Grossman, a Public Science Educator and XR spokesperson and Sarah Lunnon, a former green party councillor and XR coordinator.

These personal rebellions can be taken as two things: a demonstration of the powerful personalities within Extinction Rebellion and the Green movement, or of the divisions within a supposedly united group.

Like with the Brexit Debate analysis, I will analyse three frames each from the guiding frame of the central debate question: that being the assertion that ‘Extinction Rebellion has done more harm than good’.

lieve what is right for the country is saving lives. Whatever means we can save as many people as possible is what I’m interested in…

Extinction rebellion is modelling a new way of being.”

Dr. Chowns: subsequently rallies against Lunnon’s statement.

Chowns: [This is a] somewhat crated distinction that politics is just about political parties. Politics is about how resources are divided up, how to operate collectively.

Lunnon makes an unforced error here. There is no need to make far flung statements about Extinction Rebellion “modelling a new way of being”. She already has the crowd on her side. Indeed, her assertion solicited laughter from a large proportion of the audience: many of whom I must assume, believe in her cause. It would possibly have been easier to argue this five years ago, when green activism was less (though still strongly) prevalent within political discussion. However, the nature of Exctinction Rebellion’s activism: with groups spray-painting the treasury

with red paint, chaining themselves to Jeremy Corby’s front fence and gluing themselves to Lib Dem battle buses, suggests otherwise.

Extinction Rebellion doesn’t consider minority and developing world interests: In response to Hamza’s question contrasting the relatively privileged position many XR activists enjoy with the persecution faced by climate activists around the world, Dr. Grossman answers: Grossman: we have seen the death of environmentalists internationally...To act in this country you are able to do so in a relatively safe environment. My feelings are, as a middle-class white woman, I am able to take action because I have the power to do so.

This seems a reasonable defence against the supposed notion that there is a sense of ‘entitlement’ within Extinction Rebellion. However, this moment here illustrated the first chinks in the armour of our participants, and Grossman in particular. Head shakes and slight

tuts could be heard. In political developments, an interchangeable and complex temporal structure can often be reduced to symbols.

To some, November’s leisurely XR activist standing on top of a tube train, holding up a crowd of frustrated commuters, has come to stand as one of negative symbols regarding the XR debate. In a desired game of word association, what Grossman must want would be for XR to be associated with ‘life-saving’ and ‘vital’. However, as is evident here, they risk veering off dangerously to ‘Guardian’ and ‘cappuccino’.

One can make the case that Grossman’s ‘empowerment’ frame defends her argument well. However, this poses the question: if our nation is so good at allowing these activists to stand up for their beliefs, where is the hegemonic political-police structure opposing them?

Extinction Rebellion’s political plans are not credible: The final frame concerns a rallying against the notion that Extinction Rebellion’s aims lack re-

alism and practicality. Dr Chowns responds to this: Chowns: We have a citizens’ assembly, its acting under the auspices of six select committees...It’s the first time it has been organized in a very long time...Politics is a continuous process… you [Hamza] spoke about ‘these are the solutions’. In a way that is why I’m interested in the solution as opposed to the problem.

Chowns has defended her case well. Facts and solid speech structure have all dissuaded me from poking too deeply into the avowed benefits of Extinction Rebellion’s proposed ‘citizens’ assembly’. This after all is a Comment section about language: its power, subtleties and manipulation. To see a winning frame first-hand is akin to observing a beautiful painting.

‘The Art of Debate’ is not only about learning from the mistakes of those who fail to grasp the power of the frame, but also the capabilities of those who do. Our world may wither and die, but one thing that will reign immortal is the power of language.

www.beaveronline.co.uk | @thebeaveronline

Email us: comment@beaveronline.co.uk

The Joy of Non-partisan Politics

9

Oliver Harrison makes the case for embracing non-partisanship and vieweing politics, especially UK discourse as a colective whole, to increase public scrutiny.

Oliver Harrison Guest Contributor

T

he upcoming election will be the first in which I will be old enough to vote. It’s an exciting yet tumultuous time to engage in politics. Deep dividing lines have been drawn between neighbours, friends, and family about some of the biggest policy choices that the UK has faced in a generation.

For the most part I welcome this division. There is no one right way to run a country, and no set of values which is objectively superior to the rest. Differences of opinion are inevitable, and essential, in a liberal democracy. Our system of government gives us the means by which we can negotiate and compromise between different values, creating a system inherently checked and balanced by the plurality of the electorate. I celebrate the debates which accompany modern politics.

However, I am concerned that

the fervour and rancour surrounding this election are distracting us from an issue bigger than anything contained within the manifesto of any party: the health and wellbeing of our democracy.

Democracy is a wonderful thing. It allows us to participate in our own governance and have a fair say in the future of the country.

It gives us the tools to engage in lively debate and to see our principles manifested in law. It encourages us to be active and engaged members of a political community which is more than the aggregate of our individual fancies. A truly healthy liberal democracy is the best system of government available to us.

Unfortunately, the preservation and improvement of our own democracy tends to take a back seat when more overtly emotive issues are on the table. Boris Johnson, just two days prior to publicly announcing his support for leaving the EU in 2016, wrote an unpublished article in which he laid out the case for remaining in Europe.

He discussed the impending economic shocks of Brexit and the untapped potential of the European single market. Evidently, he decided that this was not the way that the winds of public opinion were blowing, and the article remained hidden until The Sunday Times unearthed it some months later.

Corbyn too has a calculated stance on EU membership. Despite his decidedly Eurosceptic voting record in Parliament, the Labour leader has repeatedly dodged making public declarations of his attitude toward leaving the EU. Presumably he senses that openly supporting Brexit would alienate the majority of Labour voters and lose him the support of the party.

Most politicians and wouldbe Prime Ministers in recent times have had similarly duplicitous track records when it comes to the expression of their honest opinions.

Unfortunately, many voters have a habit of ignoring instances of a politician putting their own career before their integrity or

honesty when that politician seemingly shares their political persuasions. Many tory voters refuse to criticise Johnson’s cynical tactics or his disregard for the importance of the UK’s democratic machinery.

His overtly tactical prorogation of Parliament, thinly veiled behind pro-democratic justifications, has been all but forgotten about for fears of its impact on his election campaign. For the same reason, Labour voters are often guilty of turning a blind eye to Corbyn’s duplicity, which he too tries to conceal beneath the veneer of the ‘honest broker'.

We as voters have a responsibility to criticise the political class when they make blunders. Moreover, it is in our interests to bring attention to the lies, schemes and games of those canvassing for our votes. The truth is that it has become all too easy for politicians to go unpunished when they mislead the public. The disease of the ‘team’ has crept into politics, whereby voters align themselves like drones behind the badges of

political parties. Being a Labour voter or a Tory becomes part of one’s personality, deeply ingrained in one’s self-image. To criticise the party becomes to cast aside one’s personality and one’s convictions.

In truth though, voters gain nothing from ignoring political malfeasance. To do so encourages dishonesty in the political class and contributes to the opacity of politics. This plays directly into the hands of populist politicians who lack real convictions and will do anything it takes to increase their share of the vote. To protect our democracy - and ourselves - we citizens have to break out of the mindset of party politics and actively scrutinise those that would wield political power, no matter their ideological persuasions. If we fail to do so, we are destined to watch our democracy crumble at the hands of the self-interested political class, to whom participatory politics is just the easiest means by which to consolidate power.

Sentient and Serious: the Threat of AI flickr.com/mikemacmarketing/

Sagal Mohammed Staff Writer

A

is an example of AI disrupting the construction industry. SAM can lay 1000 bricks an hour in stark contrast to the 800 bricks a day a construction worker can. These kinds of technological advancements highlight why A.I. is so appealing to industry leaders, as such advancements increases the output in a shorter-time scale as targets are achieved quicker. If a human builder works 12 hours, they lay 9600 bricks while SAM lays 12000 bricks in the same 12-hour window, increasing productivity by 125%. Higher productivity means firms can charge a higher rate for their construction services as they offer a more efficient service, while at the same time reducing their overall head costs, as a proportion of revenue generated spent on salaries is eroded. While machines like SAM will increase efficiency, it will do so at the expense of replacing human labour. A research study from economists Carl Benedikt Frey and Michael Osborne found that A.I. will result in a 47% loss of jobs between the next 4050 years. This hit isn’t spread out

equally, as it will disproportionately affect work that is laborious or low-income services. These sectors are spread across construction, factory work, agriculture, call-centre’s, cashiers and hospitality work. SAM has been introduced to the construction industry in Aus-

“

AI won’t only change the job market, but it’ll also lead to widening gap between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’, festering resentment between those who feel looked over.

“

2020 candidate for the U.S. Presidential election refers to it as the upcoming onslaught of the ““disintegration of our society from the greatest economic transformation”. Artificial Intelligence (A.I) is causing widespread anxiety across business, science and economists. Now Democratic candidate Andrew Yang is using his nationwide platform to shine a light on how the Fourth Industrial Revolution will permanently alter the job market.

One of the core reason A.I carries such an underpinning of discomfort comes from the ambiguity of the term. As it’s an umbrella term, it conjures different hypothetical situations depending on each person’s position in life. If you’re a trucker A.I means self-driving cars taking over your industry; If you’re a retailer worker, AI means rows of self-checkout machines lined where cashiers used to be. For the purpose of this article, AI will be referred to as by any machine that has been programmed to complete a particular action by learning from data until it can perfectly execute said action. AI take various versions, but the most common models used are machines, robots, algorithms and data analytics. As technological advancements are always improving with the next invention, an effective way to understand A.I is to view it through the lens of “Tesler’s theorem”: A.I is what ever computer robots have yet to achieve.

Software engineers can programme A.I. to carry out laborious tasks of a degree that executes the action with more precision, accuracy and less room than any human labour. The robotic bricklayer “SAM” (Semi-automated mason)

tralia, and that implantation has already seen seen the construction jobs fall by 45% since 2012. The US Insurance rating firm NCCI (National Council on Compensa-

tion) estimates 6.9% of jobs will be lost in the construction industry from automation between the time spectrum of 2014-2024 alongside 200,000 fewer employees across industries in customer service, agriculture and retail.

AI won’t only change the job market, but it’ll also lead to widening gap between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’, festering resentment between those who feel looked over by modernisation of the economy. Increasing social and economic inequality between those who have the skills to endure the disruption of AI and those who contend with it, with little control over their work conditions (the elites vs the ordinary working man) has become the defining theme of our time. Arguably, the social repercussions to A.I have already begun, with the election of Trump in 2016 hailing the new dawn of economic populism and protectionist policies. In the 1810s the working class were experiencing their own transformation of the economy the industrial revolution. Fearing this new incoming modernisation

of the economy, a group of textile workers smashed up machines they feared would replace them and become known from thereon as the Luddit es.

For now, the greatest assurance workers and businesses’ can take from an uncertain future is that this has occurred before. As far back as the 4th century BC, Ancient greek scholars like Aristotle were contemplating that if “every instrument could accomplish its own work,chief workmen would not want servants, nor masters slaves”. In 1589 Queen Elizabeth I worried that the developments of the stocking frame knitting machine in Tudor England would “assuredly bring [my subjects] to ruin by depriving them of employment, thus making them beggars.’’.

In every period of human history, there have been fears about labour displacement at the hands of machine. Today, a few weeks from entering a new decade, this generation must face down the same challenges of our ancestors and find a solution to circumvent the disruption of AI into the job market.

10

Features

Email us: features@beaveronline.co.uk Features Editors Annabelle Jarrett Colin Vanelli Marianne Hii

LSE Professor Fawaz Gerges on the London Bridge Attack The Beaver talks about London Bridge with LSE's world-renowned specialist on Salafi jihadism.

Thahminah Begum Thaniya News Staff Writer

O

n 29 November, London fell victim to yet another terrorist attack. Usman Khan, wearing a fake suicide vest, stabbed several civilians around Fishmongers’ Hall before being tackled by passers-by and shot by police on the pavement of London Bridge. Cambridge graduates Jack Merritt, 25, and Saskia Jones, 23, were killed in the attack while attending a prisoner rehabilitation conference. Khan was convicted of terrorism-related offences in 2012 for planning to carry out attacks across the UK, including a plot to bomb the London Stock Exchange.

The Islamic State has claimed responsibility for the events at London Bridge.

The Beaver’s Thahmina Begum sat down with Fawaz Gerges, historian of the modern Middle East, and world-renowned specialist on Salafi-jihadi movements--including the Islamic State--for his take on the recent attack. Gerges is a Professor of International Relations and Emirates Professor in Contemporary Middle East Studies at the LSE, and the author of ISIS: A History (Princeton University Press, 2017).

Beaver: Professor Gerges, ISIS has lost a lot of territory in recent months and, just over a month ago, also lost its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Yet the group still seems to have momentum. Where does it stand?

Fawaz Gerges: Although ISIS is not invincible, it is resilient and has thousands of active combat-

ants, sleeper cells, and fanatical followers in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, West Africa, and beyond. In the past two years, ISIS has suffered a catastrophic setback in Iraq and Syria. It's not defeated, however. The group frequently carries out attacks in Iraq and Syria and [Egypt’s] Sinai Peninsula, and has already morphed from a landbased state into an insurgency. Its transnational, traveling ideology is still potent, appealing to deluded individuals worldwide, including the UK. Beaver: If we focus on Usman Khan, who was the London Bridge attacker, here you have a British man who remained in this country, was not an ISIS returnee, but had been convicted of terrorism charges previously. How significant is the domestic threat of individuals who are sympathetic to the group’s ideology?

FG: It’s worth noting the ISIS wave which we witnessed in 2014 has lost much of its momentum.

The EU reported that in just 2015 alone, European countries experienced 150 attacks, but in 2018 there was only 13 attacks. Now this is not only a substantial decrease of ISIS-inspired attacks, but the gravity and potency of ISISbased attacks have considerably decreased. For example, the attacks that broke out on European streets in 2015, 2016, and 2017 were devastating, coordinated attacks that killed and injured hundreds of civilians. In 2018 and 2019, most of these have been lone-wolf attacks which are inspired by the ideology of Al-Qaeda and ISIS. So, whilst coordinated, large-scale attacks have almost disappeared, we now

have this lone-wolf phenomenon of the Usman Khan type, which is resilient. I think these lone-wolf attacks will remain with us for a while because there are many deluded, fanatical, hardcore individuals who subscribe to Al-Qaeda and ISIS ideology, not only in Arabic and Islamic lands but in Western societies as well.

Beaver: So, coordinated attacks are declining but lone-wolf attacks remain. How do countries like the UK protect themselves?

FG: There is no magical wand that can disappear politically inspired violence by either Al-Qaeda and ISIS or the far-right extremists in Western countries. Time and again, as we have witnessed, it is extremely difficult to pre-empt lonewolf attacks. Usman Khan was in prison since 2011 and was released in 2018. He was monitored by security forces, but this didn’t stop him from going on a killing spree.

It is also very difficult to get into the minds of lone-wolves: those who are radicalised online and who subscribe to Al-Qaeda and

ISIS ideology. The most effective means to tackle far-right extremism is to focus on the root causes of politically inspired violence, to work with local communities, to construct a counternarrative that debunks these utopias, and to utilise information and intelligence effectively. For instance, in 2017, the British security forces managed to pre-empt 17 attacks before they had occurred.

Beaver: But there are many people who argue that actually enough hasn’t been done to address this threat. We’ve seen discussions about harsher and increased sentences for serious crimes and for convicted terrorists, strengthening and expanding our security services, and counterterrorism policing to monitor people who sympathise with groups like ISIS. Do you think more needs to be done to tackle this?

FG: The key to tackling extremism and politically inspired violence is not more securitisation and counterterrorism but farsighted strategies that nourish a sense of

community, inclusiveness, and social development. A counternarrative is urgently needed to expose the viciousness and futility of farright extremism. Counterterrorism is a technical tool that is incapable of tackling a complex ideological phenomenon like Salafi-jihadism and the new Fascism.

Beaver: You previously mentioned lone-wolf attacks that are carried out by the far-right, and we have seen an increase in white supremacy extremism recently in the West. What are some of the similarities, if there are any, between these attacks?

FG: Both of these ideologies are two sides of the same coin.

They are nourished on a deep sense of victimhood, alienation, and racism. Blaming the “Other” is key to their messianic utopia.

Beaver: You teach students about political ideas and transnational ideologies like Islamism.

What do these attacks and similar ISIS-inspired violence that we’ve seen across the West tell us about the travelling nature and the mobilising capabilities of these ideas?

FG: What is missing from the debate in the Western media is that Muslims represent the overwhelming majority of victims of terrorist attacks worldwide. Al-Qaeda and ISIS have killed many more Muslims than Westerners. Nevertheless, the transnational ideology of Salafi-jihadism has shown to be appealing and seductive to scores of Westerners who search for utopias.

Memes, Campaigns, & Meme Campaigns The youth vote will define this election. How are the parties trying to win it?

Heba Khalid

Features Staff Writer

I

t is only in recent years that online campaigns have begun to be taken seriously as a campaigning tactic for political parties. Previously, politicians stuck to their conventional methods of door-todoor canvassing, posted leaflets, face-to-face reasoning, and large media campaigns spanning across newspapers, radio stations, and TV. But in an age where the youth vote is becoming increasingly pivotal, parties have had to adapt and stray from convention to attract the attention of one of the most integral voter cohorts.

Social media platforms currently have become digital battlegrounds for opposing parties. In 2015, the Electoral Commission revealed that political parties nationally spent about £1.3 million on Facebook, and by 2017, this number more than doubled to £3.2 million. Within a span of 6 years, reported spending by campaigners on digital advertising has in general soared from 0.3% to 42.8%. In

2018, the Electoral Commission released an entire report dedicated to digital campaigning, and stressed the importance of remaining transparent online in terms of spending, the people behind the campaigns, and the information being spread to the wider public.

Furthermore, ‘meme warfare’ was a hot topic during the 2016 US Presidential Election, with some commentators going as far as suggesting that it was, and still is, ruining democracy.

It’s intriguing how political parties in the UK have now seized the opportunity to capitalise on memes and similar pop cultural references to force major traction online.

Admittedly, sometimes the efforts are commendable in offering a short and snappy message that can be shared amongst thousands of followers online. This was especially helpful in the build up to the voter registration deadline, for instance.

Other times, it is difficult to see past the trivialising effect that digital campaigns have on profound social and political issues.

Reducing all concerns surrounding immigration into a 2 minute video just doesn’t cut it, regardless of your political affinities. A lofi ‘boriswave’ track to ‘relax/get Brexit done to’ may be “a digital literacy we’ve rarely seen in British politics” – especially from the Conservatives, who have previously struggled to sustain an effective social media presence and engage new young voters.

And, there does seem to be a limit to the possibilities of social media campaigns. The Liberal Democrats, for one, have struggled and been mocked for their questionable Facebook posts.

It has been suggested that controversy over social media election campaign posts is helpful in spreading political messages and gaining recognition online. The political strategists behind these campaigns are mostly interested in gaining a reaction, whether positive or negative.

Take, for instance, the Conservative strategy. Initially, the Tories were too tame with their posts, mostly targeting the older voters through Facebook. The ex-

ception to this was a comparison of Labour’s free broadband promise to dial-up internet, which, unsurprisingly, did not receive much traction.

More recently, they were criticised of editing a video of Sir Keir Starmer to make him seem unable, or unwilling, to answer Brexit-related questions. But as the old saying goes, all publicity is good publicity. The fact that so many people were sharing and commenting on the video meant that it ended up being one of the party’s mostwatched. Some commentators have questioned whether it was a ‘cockup or a conspiracy’.

It’s questionable how democratically healthy it is to strive for viral content, rather than voter education online.

In 2017, Labour were commended for an online campaign that motivated voters and avoided directly attacking Conservatives.

But the days of non-adversarial and non-confrontational politics are long gone. You only have to scroll through the official Twitter, Facebook, or Instagram accounts to get a sense of how parties feel

about one another.

This election, as a whole, has become a breeding ground for conflict rather than dialogue. And social media only seems to be adding fuel to the fire. It is often difficult for floating voters to navigate the information hurtled at them on their timelines. Content from targeted Facebook ads is difficult to make sense of, especially when facts and figures are conflictingly represented online. There is also the temptation of passive media consumption, which tends to be facilitated by content that is getting shorter, sharper, and potentially much hollower – or, staying within our own echo chambers, and disengaging from meaningful and balanced political discussion.

It may be tough to quantify the impact of social media and digital campaigns, but it seems as though political parties are just desperate to grasp onto any and every tool possible to spread their message and instil doubt and resentment on the other side. One thing is for sure - polarised politics continues.

Email us: features@beaveronline.co.uk

www.beaveronline.co.uk | @thebeaveronline

11

The Beaver Meets Holborn and St. Pancras General Election Candidates Small parties, big ideas. We sit down with the insurgent parties trying to upset Labour incumbent

“Democracy Works by You Accepting What the Majority Have Done”: Hector Birchwood, Morgan Fairless Executive Editor

I

never thought I would walk into an interview with a Brexit party candidate and be greeted in Spanish. Hector Birchwood, as many other Brexit party candidates standing in the general election, is not a through and through politician, having gone into politics recently. An LSE alumni and ex-Beaver cartoonist, Birchwood is a libertarian and is standing for the Brexit party in Holborn and St Pancras to challenge Keir Starmer, whom he argues has grown unpredictable and unaccountable by relying on his large majority in the constituency.

He remembers The Beaver fondly, it “was actually a really great place where people just simply discussed ideas. And it was actually a nexus for many different people from many different belief structures to just go and talk.

“In spite of its rather amateurish layout, in spite of all the spelling mistakes we had, it was actually very widely read throughout the city,” he recalls. Birchwood started drawing from a young age, and when he came to LSE, he started drawing for the paper, and his own magazine. He also became the “operations guy” for the paper, running the hardware and background operations of the paper. I could write a whole piece on what we discussed about The Beaver, but politics is what we were sat in the LSE Alumni Centre to discuss.

Birchwood is an immigrant; he was born and grew up in El Salvador, after which his family moved to California. In the 90s, he moved to England to study at LSE, where he completed an undergraduate degree and subsequently a masters.

After decades living in the country, Birchwood prides himself on being fully assimilated in the UK. When we talk about immigration, he underlines the need to ensure people

coming into the country are able to do the same.

After LSE and a brief stint at Morgan Stanley, Birchwood founded his own company Celtic Research, dedicated to finding lost heirs of people who died without leaving a will. His work is documented in the BBC1 reality show Heir Hunters. A proud libertarian, he quips that he loves his work as it helps him deliver money to rightful heirs and avoid it going to the state – what happens when an heir does not claim the inheritance.

As with other small-party candidates running in this constituency, Birchwood is realistic about what he may achieve by standing – a win is near-impossible. I ask him about what the Brexit party can offer to a constituency which is staunchly remain – about 70% according to Democratic Dashboard. The Brexit party, according to Birchwood, aims to deliver the result of the 2016 EU referendum: “People who believe in remain, who voted remain, are not necessarily people who vote against democracy. So, the issue has now changed, it’s that you may not get the outcome that you want in a democratic process.

But once that outcome has been decided, democracy works by you accepting what the majority have done.”

When pushed on the fact that people in this constituency may not actually want to leave, he retorts that just in the same way that the referendum wasn’t clear on what leave meant, it wasn’t clear on what remain meant: “Did you vote for the status quo? Did you vote for a full integration into a federal union? Did you vote for a loose confederation of Britain into a federal union? Did you vote for, let's say, your being completely part of the European army? It's actually not as easy as people think.”

His pitch to voters is strongly based on what he perceives as a defence of democracy: voters should choose him to ensure that the referendum result is respected. His

views echo many of those in the party: he has no qualms with having a free trade agreement, he just wants out of what he deems a political institution with a “corrupt, inefficient and unnecessary bureaucracy”. I ask Birchwood about his association with a party accused of bigotry, or at least racialised campaigning, and his condition as an immigrant himself. He pushes back on the notion that the Brexit party is anti-immigrant. However, he notes that he did not give money to the Leave campaign back in 2016 because he did not agree with the immigration message: “I thought our message should be about sovereignty, freedom, freedom of trade, openness, and globalism.”

He is, however, quite pragmatic about the inflammatory rhetoric used by the Leave campaign: “I did not like the message about immigration. But the reason why it was there is because it appealed to many people up in the north of the United Kingdom. It appealed to them. That’s the reality, when we're talking about a political campaign designed to win.”

Regarding other issues he talked to voters about on the campaign trail, we discussed the Brexit Party’s package for democratic reform at length, but he says that issues like knife crime and housing rank higher in voters’ minds than democratic reform. It is on knife crime that Birchwood’s libertarian credentials are most apparent: he argues that gang violence is caused by a breakdown of family values and a lack of positive male figures, rather than an issue the government can address. And he thus says that he endeavours to explain to voters the limitations of government.

Birchwood hopes by standing in such a safe seat to fight against what he sees as a too-comfortable candidate. He argues that his success will be measured in how he is able to convince voters to think about issues, insisting that as long as people stick to logic reasoning, he is happy to disagree on policy

Photo: Twitter, @hbirchwood1

“I did not like

the message about immigration. But the reason why it was there is because it appealed to many people up in the north of the United Kingdom.

“

Brexit Party

solutions. At debates, he says that he endeavours to challenge voters to use reason to avoid politicians framing other candidates into particular boxes. It must be said, however, that in an ostensibly liberal constituency, particularly in advocating for Brexit, he faces an uphill battle.

Learn more about Hector Birchwood at https://www.thebrexitparty.org/

12

Features

Tuesday 10 December 2019 | The Beaver

“Europe is Part of Every Solution”: Matthew Kirk, Liberal Democrats Tom Prendergast

Deputy Features Editor

T

he Beaver initially meets Matthew Kirk, the Liberal Democrats’ candidate for parliament in Holborn and St Pancras, in LSE’s Shaw Cafe. This is familiar ground for Kirk, having worked as a barrister directly across the road for decades.

Mutually concluding that the music playing at surprising volume in the Shaw – Darc Marc’s 150bpm techno rager “Dirty Rocking Bass” – is perhaps not the most conducive background to an interview, we soon take refuge on the ground floor of the New Academic Building, where Kirk begins outlining his top electoral priorities.

“The number one issue of this election is to stop Brexit. It’s number one partly because it’s the most pressing question of the day, but also because it defines what’s the sort of country that I want to live in, and that I can only imagine most students want to live in as well – optimistic, outward looking, and engaged with the world.”

To anyone paying attention to the Liberal Democrats’ campaign in the current election, this admission comes as no surprise. Rather than supporting a second referendum in the mold of Labour, the Liberal Democrats have controver-

sially embraced a policy of outright revocation of Article 50, putting an immediate stop to Brexit without a direct public vote.

For Kirk, a lifelong campaigner for deeper European integration, stopping Brexit is an absolute necessity. Almost all of the economic and social issues currently facing the UK, he claims, see their solutions in Europe. In his eyes, the NHS’s current staffing crisis has developed “partially because we have made doctors and nurses from other parts of the European Union feel unwelcome”, while UK universities would fall behind “if they are no longer at the forefront of European and world research projects.” Public services are bound to degrade even further, he suggests, “if we choose to make ourselves poorer to the tune of £50 billion.”

When asked what the Liberal Democrats may have to offer a Leave voter, Kirk is unequivocal.

“We have very little to offer Leavers. There’s been a lot of discussion about our policy to simply revoke [article 50] if we got an absolute majority. It is for me a perfectly proper democratic answer to the referendum, because we are utterly honest that we are a Remain party, appealing to Remainers.”

Long before it redefined itself as the party of Remain, electoral reform was the permanent flagship policy of the Liberal Democrats.

During their time in government alongside the Conservatives, they finally secured a referendum on this question – only to lose dramatically with close to 70% of the vote against. Despite this crushing defeat, Kirk is optimistic about the potential for electoral change in the UK. “The level of public awareness that FPTP [first past the post] has failed is on a totally different scale to anything that I remember or have read about,” he proclaims, visibly excited. “There were reasonable arguments for FPTP once upon a time, but there’s a widespread feeling on most doorsteps that those arguments have collapsed.”

Far from being solely a third party concern anymore, he suggests that even the two dominant parties may soon be in favour of reform.

“Everybody knows the extent of tactical voting, and at this point both the Tories and Labour are gatherings of people who hate each other. It’s a bit of an Adrian Mole type situation,” he says, referring to Sue Townsend’s popular British book series – “they would split if they could decide who got the name. So, appetite for electoral reform: massive. Probability of it actually happening: better than it’s been for as long time.”

Much like their two largest competitors, the Liberal Democrats’ local campaigning in this

election has come under substantial scrutiny amid accusations of dishonesty. A number of LSE students observed to The Beaver that they had received Liberal Democrat pamphlets misleadingly designed to look like newspapers – one, circulated in the constituency of Vauxhall under the name Lambeth News, failed to mention anywhere that it was a partisan publication, its status as such only betrayed by its biased content.

“Oh, you’re about to ask about bar charts, aren’t you,” Kirk laughs as this subject is broached. “I can feel it coming.”

The use (or misuse) of bar charts in electoral pamphlets, many of which were drawn with false proportions or suspect data, have formed possibly the most controversial aspect of these local campaigns. On this point, Kirk defends the party’s choices.

“Look, using tabloids has been done extensively by every major party for decades. If you go to the Guardian article that kicked up this storm in the first place, it quietly says everybody’s been doing that and always has, but here we are. As for the bar charts, they are an issue, but those that appear on my material use academic projections of the European vote in Holborn and St Pancras, which are actually less favourable to us than the direct European election vote in the constituency. It’s a real chart

Photo: Camden Liberal Democrats

showing real change, and Labour don’t look as far ahead as it has been in the past.”

Even if the constituency’s allegiances have started to shift, the Liberal Democrats face an uphill struggle – no non-Labour candidate has ever won in Holborn and St Pancras, and local MP Sir Keir Starmer ranks as one of the party’s most personally popular politicians. Just how successful they and Kirk are in this endeavour been will be evident by the end of the week.

For more information on Matthew Kirk, visit: http://ldcamden. nationbuilder.com/matthew_kirk

“Grit in the Oyster”: Kirsten de Keyser, Green Party Annabelle Jarrett Features Editor

K

irsten de Keyser, Green Party candidate for Holborn and St Pancras, meets with The Beaver on a brisk afternoon in early December. She opens up about campaigning, the climate crisis, and whether or not there is such a thing as a ‘wasted vote’. De Keyser is candid in her responses – a refreshing quality for a politician.

The interview flows naturally.

De Keyser is honest about her political background: “I was a bit of a political bed-hopper, you might say.” Originally a Labour member, she joined the Liberal Democrats to fight for abolishing tuition fees.

“That lasted, what, five minutes?” she laughs. Eventually, she came into the Green Party by accident. “I looked at the [Green Party’s] website and thought, oh, actually this party’s come of age… I was really impressed.” That was five years ago now.

De Keyser is adamant that this is the “climate election”. “If we don’t have a climate, it doesn’t matter how good or bad Brexit is,” she says. She is weary of how Brexit has been a talking point “hammered” by Labour and the Tories, or “the Grand Old parties as I like to call them.” Despite this, she is hopeful about the climate message. “This is possibly the easiest election I’ve ever campaigned in,

because the planet’s campaigning with me.” For de Keyser, the Green Party is the climate action party, “because we are one hundred percenters.” Other parties don’t go far enough because “they’re afraid of losing votes.” What’s missing from the other parties is this courage, “the guts to tell people uncomfortable truths.”

She comes across as passionate, driven, but above all else, pragmatic. “I’m no lentil-munching tree hugger,” she tells The Beaver. In the Holborn & St Pancras constituency, de Keyser recognises the significant lead that incumbent senior Labour Member Keir Starmer has. “I’m not campaigning to win the seat,” she says. “That would be like Jo Swinson standing up and saying, ‘I’m standing here as the next Prime Minister of the UK’ – no you’re not, Jo.” Instead, de Keyser wants to be “the grit in the oyster… the person that keeps the conversation alive.” In fact, there’s a beauty to this logic, in her seat at least. Starmer’s lead is such that “the Tories will never catch him… even the Lib Dems would have a hard task catching him.”

This means that “it doesn’t matter, we can vote with our hearts… [we can] actually vote for what we believe in.” For de Keyser, there’s no such thing as a ‘wasted vote’. She believes in the power of making a statement through voting. In Holborn & St Pancras, a large Green vote would “be a wakeup call” to

Starmer, meaning “he would have to heed that Green presence” in his position. She wants to be this “voice from the left to the left.”

De Keyser is pragmatic too on the dilemma of tactical voting.

For those voting from the left, “if you’re in a very marginal constituency, then it could well be that you need to vote Labour in order to get the desired result… if it’s that or Tory, then obviously you would vote Labour.” This should be viewed on a “constituency by constituency basis,” however.

In Holborn & St Pancras, she tells The Beaver, “it really is a multicoloured constituency in both culture and political hue.”

This complexity, she says, “has its own challenges for the blues and the reds”, but not for the Greens.

Why? “Because everybody agrees with us!” The Green Party is targeting youth investment in the area, opening youth centres to be run in collaboration with young people.

De Keyser argues that this must be a priority in politics, highlighting the rising knife crime in Camden as an example of the need for youth advocacy work. “You don’t stop that by having greater sentences or whatever, because that’s not where it starts, it starts at the grassroots level.”

Discussing recent Greens controversies, de Keyser remains candid and honest. Regarding the recent remarks made by Extinction Rebellion’s co-founder Roger

Hallam, a group the Green Party have collaborated with on a number of occasions, she admits that she “hadn’t been directly involved in it.” On Extinction Rebellion more broadly, however, de Keyser admits that she “broadly agree[s] with what they do.” “Peaceful protest almost took us backwards, let alone got any results… since XR [Extinction Rebellion], and since Greta Thunberg, things have suddenly started to shift, so they are effective.” Her pragmatism reemerges in discussing the recent announcement of the pact between the Greens, Lib Dems, and Plaid Cymru, in which they agreed to stand aside in more than 60 seats to avoid splitting the vote for Remainers. “You have to collaborate with other people,” she says, “it’s like a coalition in opposition.” Acknowledging that this will deprive certain voters of the opportunity to vote for the Green Party, she finds it to be a matter of the “greater good.” “Coalitions are grown up politics,” she says.

De Keyser would love to see an LSESU Greens Party society led by the students, similar to ones at other universities. The Green Party have a number of key initiatives significant to the student vote, particularly abolishing tuition fees and lowering the voting age to 16.

“As a party we are more youth-focused in the things that we do,” she shares. Compared with the Labour party who are “stuck in the 70s” in

Photo: Camden Green Party

their entrenchment with trade unions, the Tories who “just want to hold on to what they’ve got”, and the Lib Dems who “seem to have their own traditional values”, the Greens aspire to represent this gap.

She fundamentally believes in the power of young people. “Sixteen year olds are bloody impressive,” she declares, but at the same time, “young people are so disenfranchised.” The politicians know they need to please the pensioners she argues, “because they vote.”

Young people are overlooked by politicians in their decision making like this.

Her solution? “Vote, vote, and vote some more.”

For more information on Kirsten de Keyser, visit her website: https:// kirstendekeyser.com/

Email us: features@beaveronline.co.uk

www.beaveronline.co.uk | @thebeaveronline

“No to Brexit, No to the EU!”: Thomas Scripps, Socialist Equality Party Colin Vanelli Features Editor

L

ike many things in London, the precise closing time of Lincoln’s Inn Fields – cryptically signposted as ‘dusk’ – is possibly subject to arcane tradition, but definitely confusing. The Beaver’s interview with Thomas Scripps, the Socialist Equality Party’s candidate for Holborn and St Pancras, begins with our being evicted from Fields to the steps of the New Academic Building, where we talked Brexit, worker’s strikes, and being to the left of Labour (don’t tell the Daily Mail!).

Scripps, 24, may be the youngest candidate in the race, but he knows the area well: he completed his undergraduate degree at UCL before moving over to King’s for a masters in modern history. Holborn and St Pancras is, as he explains it, a fascinating portrait of London’s contrasts: the area lies in close proximity to centres of financial and political power in City and Westminster, yet hosts one of the highest numbers of rough sleepers in the country. “Cheek-byjowl levels of extravagant wealth and extreme poverty” characterise London as well as his district, he says, noting that the gap in life expectancy between the richest and poorest people in the constituency is nearly twenty years.

Scripps is one of just three candidates in the UK standing for the Socialist Equality Party, a Trotskyist outfit affiliated with the International Committee of the Fourth International, a global network of affiliated Socialist Equality Parties.

The party last ran in this district in the 2015 general election, where it won 108 votes. This time around, all three candidates are running in overwhelmingly safe Labour seats, and Scripps is realistic about his chances. “We’re not going to overturn Keir Starmer’s [30,000-plus] seat majority,” he explains, but argues that a vote for the SEP will

draw attention to key issues on the party’s platform: among them, their objection to the continued detention of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange at HMP Belmarsh and their support for a ‘United Socialist States of Europe’ as an alternative to the current neoliberal European Union. Scripps pointed to the European Union’s “viciously anti-migrant policies” and moves towards a European army as evidence that the EU is not working in the interests of the Left or working people. Scripps agrees with those who back Remain out of a sense of European solidarity, but says that they’re going about it the wrong way; what is needed for true solidarity is a “fundamental transformation of society”.

On the EU, Scripps seems to delight in a position which, in its ability to anger both sides, might be a rare source of unity between the more typical wings of the debate. In 2016, the party supported an ‘active boycott’ of the referendum; today, they urge supporters to “make a conscious political choice to reject” what the party sees as a “false dichotomy” between the two “equally reactionary wings of the Brexit debate.” He explains that, while the initial Brexit push emerged from the left and was a position that the SEP could get behind, the Leave campaign “was so blindingly and dominantly right-wing” that the SEP has instead crafted a position which is best summed up by its manifesto pledge: “No to Brexit, No to the EU.” What does an ‘active boycott’ hope to achieve, exactly?

Scripps points to airline strikes earlier in the summer as evidence of trans-national, pan-European working class solidarity beyond the neoliberal institutions of the EU. “It immediately raises the question of an international unified offensive. Because these companies operate across continents and across the world, they are able to play sections of the workforce against each other. Hence you need

international struggle. It is out of that international solidarity in a left-wing direction that we think you can build a genuine, unified Europe.”

While his characterization of the Leave and Remain factions as “equally reactionary” may be hyperbolic, Scripps is concerned that a potential Labour government will bow to the pressure of its “Blairite right-wing”, and hopes that the SEP can play a role in pushing the conversation to the left. Already, Scripps said, Corbyn’s manifesto “is offering what he thinks British capitalism is prepared to give, which is not much given the scale of the social crisis.

But even then, even thinking that he can get that much, is wrong.”

British voters might do well to be skeptical of Labour, in his view, given their history as “the party of [war in] Iraq, privatization, and the origins of austerity.” As more recent concerns, he cites Corbyn’s retreat on his previous anti-NATO position, the role of Labour councils in imposing Tory austerity, and Labour’s treatment of accusations of institutional anti-Semitism – accusations which were, in his party’s view, “totally baseless, and allowed his key supporters to be expelled through that smear campaign, rather than offering a strong defense of the left-wing’s historic role in combating anti-Semitism.”

Anti-Tory sentiment is understandable – “we’ve got to get rid of this government, because it’s hurting us,” – but some of Scripps’ most productive canvassing conversations during this cycle have been with Labour voters, supporters, and staffers. They tend to “agree with many of the criticisms we’re making with how the party is run” and although they “might be voting Labour in this election,” Scripps hopes that they will continue to engage with the SEP and their arguments in the future. In this sentiment, the SEP’s clearest conception of electoralism emerges: seeking to target not individual

impact such a meteoric rise has had, and how policy might determine the future of the planet.

On 28 February 2019, Parliament discussed the climate crisis for the first time in two years. As it was a general debate, by definition, no course of action was necessary.

On 1 May 2019, Parliament declared a climate emergency: supported by the Green Party but tabled by Jeremy Corbyn. Devolved governments and councils across the UK preceded this action. As the national government itself hasn’t declared one, by definition, no course of action was deemed necessary.

On 24 September 2019, delegates at the Labour Party Conference overwhelmingly supported two motions backing a Green New Deal: a policy package still being determined, but resolutely aimed at addressing the climate crisis. Readers won’t need reminding that an opposition motion at a conference, by definition, is not national policy.

On 28 November 2019, Channel 4 held the first ever dedicated climate debate in UK broadcasting history, echoing CNN’s initiative

back in September. Neither Johnson nor Farage accepted Channel 4’s invitation, yet Johnson responded to the debate happening without him by threatening the broadcaster’s license. This is the force of the climate issue. If this threat can be likened to the prorogation – both rejecting scrutiny and the role of political representation in democracy – the Conservatives think the climate crisis is at least as politically salient as Brexit. Climate, and the plain fact that it is connected to everything else, is a threat to the right. Recent U-turns by the government, including the halting of fracking and the introduction of a cabinet committee on climate change, are a response to this growing concern. But as expected, they refuse to bring forward their

13

Photo: International Committee of the Fourth International

seats themselves (which tend to be unassailably Labour), but rather to inject the political discourse with a Socialist perspective on a clear set of wedge issues.

After all, much of the work that Scripps talks about is beyond the realm of electoral politics. From the ongoing university strike action across the constituency, to the upcoming Southern Rail strikes, and the ill-fated Royal Mail strikes (quashed by a “highly undemocratic High Court injunction”), to Scripps, politics seems to be negotiated more successfully on the streets than in Parliament.

Students are natural allies in this fight: the state education sector has been one of the hardest hit by austerity, and students suffer when taught by increasingly precarious workforces. Far from being a site of learning, universities have been transformed into a “marketplace

for high price-tag students and property speculation,” to the detriment of actual learning. Building a mass-socialist movement doesn’t happen overnight, but Scripps is optimistic. “Arguments on the streets play a role, but so do the experiences of objective events.

The events in Britain over the next few years will produce the sort of events that we’re seeing across the world, in terms of the protests in Chile, Haiti and Puerto Rico, and even in Iraq. Mass protests which are diverse in every fact except for their unifying cause: an opposition to social inequality and the authoritarianism which comes along with it. And we’ve got dibs on the name Socialist Equality Party.”

commitment to net zero emissions to 2030, currently at 2050.

Will Labour’s Green Industrial Revolution (slash, Green New Deal), be a successful mechanism in their manifesto? It’s the first comprehensive and cross-category policy to be adopted by a major party. Climate canvassing and phone-banking sessions have been taking place since the beginning of the campaign period, for the first time in my seven years of campaigning experience.

In a YouGov poll published November 7, the environment has had the biggest jump in importance between the 2017 and 2019 general elections. Previously, only 8% considered it one of their top three issues, 26 percentage points behind the economy. Now it is tied with the economy as the fourth most important issue. A quarter of the population place it in their top three issues.

In June, YouGov reported that 74% of under 25s (compared to 54% in general), said climate change would impact their voting behaviour in the next election. Combined with a huge rise in registrations of under 25s (1 million by the deadline), who

knows what the impact will be - but it’s likely to have an unprecedented effect.

Why is this so important? In the IPCC’s well-cited 2018 special report, they concluded that global emissions of carbon dioxide must peak by 2020 to limit the global temperature rise to 1.5°C at pre-industrial levels. This general election, and the US presidential election in November 2020, come at scarily coincidental junctures in the race for effective, radical (sensible) climate policies. We’ve missed the traditionally conservative IPCC’s deadline.

So now begins the race for 2°C, or 2.5°C, or beyond that.

I have watched as climate has risen to the top of public discourse, political and institutional agendas, even within the Beaver. But will it be enough? Will we act in time? Every study, every piece of well-informed political analysis indicates that we need to associate the radical with being sensible. These are climate elections, hopefully the first of many, so use your vote to survive. This time next year, I hope we’re at least on the path to doing so.

Learn more about the SEP at their website, wsws.org

Climate Elections: Deciding the Future?

Managing Editor

N

ot many people would know that the first rendition of the infamous Green New Deal was proposed by Caroline Lucas and a group of economists, journalists, and environmentalists in 2007 as part of the Green New Deal Group. But with the storm that Ed Markey and AOC’s version has created, you wouldn’t be expected to. The autumn of 2018 was the perfect storm: the emergence of the Sunrise Movement, the accelerated attendance of ‘Fridays 4 Future’ protests, and Extinction Rebellion’s first demonstration. The world has been forever changed.

On both sides of the pond, climate is more salient and holds more weight in Western politics than ever before. That’s quite extraordinary, given the environmental movement has tried to influence politics for the last 50 years. So on the precipice of the next decade, a new government, and a heating Democratic primary race, let us analyse how much of an

Climate, and the “plain fact that it

is connected to everything else, is a threat to the right.

“

Isabella Pojuner

FLIPSIDE VOL. 24

DEC 10 FREE

PART B: Has the commercialisation of feminism gone too far?

REVIEW: The best and worst of the 2010s

SPORT: AU Carol 2019 in pictures

CAT

SOCIAL: The six types of Tories you’ll find at uni

MACLEANJASON REED

JASON

REED CAT MACLEAN

A

s we come upon the UK’s third general election in four years, it makes sense to talk to some of the political-types on campus. This week, we’re talking to Cat MacLean, former chair of LSESU Labour, now their LGBT and Cooperative Society and Jason Reed, current treasurer for LSESU Conservative Society. Curious to know what drew two radically different people to the same university I asked both of them why they chose to come to LSE. Jason plainly states “the honest answer is because I got rejected from Cambridge,” before adding he just wanted to be in London, “in the centre of everything.”

For Cat, the move was a tactical decision – “I did really bad in my AS levels. I went to quite a bad school and I kind of fucked them up. LSE’s grades for Social Policy were like AAB, and I knew that I wanted to do economics because I really enjoyed maths and I also really enjoyed writing, but I knew that if I followed a STEM route I wouldn’t be able to write in the same way.”

Jason wouldn’t describe himself as working class but “by a lot of the standards I fit into working class because you know, in terms of money, I had free school meals and scholarships.” He isn’t quite sure how he got a received pronunciation accent. Still, he did go to grammar school, which has given him a leg up in the ratrace we call society. The same cannot be said for Cat’s school which was “half government run, half sponsored by companies like Airbus and Rolls Royce and even the Royal Navy”. She describes it as a Tory scheme meant to encourage young people into apprenticeships which was completely ignored after set up. It also had a huge gender imbalance, 120 boys and four girls, coupled with behavioural problems – “our ceilings used to get set on fire all the time”. By the end of year 12, she couldn’t deal with it anymore: “I dropped out of college and I went to a very normal sixth form and basically didn’t talk to anyone for a whole year.”

On the other hand, Jason is kind of

an oxymoron. He’s a Tory doing Sociology, a subject thoroughly derided by everyone left of Anna Soubry as post-modern neo-Marxist indoctrination.

“I must have been asked 1000 times how I’m possibly coping, being conservative with the obvious horrendous left wing bias,” he says, adding that “you have to have a degree of open-mindedness to study [sociology], which, in the most delicate way possible, a lot of right-leaning people do not have. So they might struggle. But yeah, there’s no institutional bias, there’s certainly no oppression of conservatives going on. It’s very easy to study.” People on the right can’t understand his choice because they “can’t understand why anyone would not want to dedicate their life to earning as much money as possible in the shortest possible time.”

ual. “I’m actually really happy to be part of the Labour society in a different way again, like more integrated, rather running it and have these amazing chairs in this amazing committee that I think are really sick, like I think they’re amazing. I think a huge part of my Labour politics is because I’m bi. I really strongly think that Labour government would would be a very positive move for the whole community.” Moving on from Cat’s bisexual politics, we discuss her fabulously blonde hair. “Me and my friend Isaac in late January mania time saw this really funny photo of Justin Timberlake and Britney Spears.

Justin Timberlake has like the the noodle hair,” she says and credits the photo with their decision to go blonde. Since then, she’s learnt to re-bleach her roots herself because getting it done was “so fucking expensive”.

Back on the election, Cat is understandably feeling “very, very, very stressed because. I’m really scared of like five more years of the Tories.” She feels slightly alienated coming from a state school and a “not a very well-off area in Bristol” and experiencing the run-up to the poll in the bubble of LSE. “It’s a bubble, but also because everyone does politics everyone’s very invested in invested in like a scientific experiment sort of way.

And I’m very invested on a personal level like I need help. My friends need help everyone I know from home needs more help from the government and I know that they’re not going to get it.” Contrastingly, Jason says he’s “feeling okay about it. It’s been a weird one – being a winter, it hasn’t really felt like the elections normally feel. But the Conservative manifesto, for example, is about three and a half pages. No one feels really invested in this I don’t think.” Without falling into the aforementioned trope of being a gamey social scientist, it feels like this election is too close to call.

Jason’s unsure about his future, “if you find out what my career aspirations are, let me know because I have no idea.” Still he’s done quite well for himself in forging a journalistic career, with articles in The Times and other nationally syndicated outlets. “I just started writing about 18 months ago, but not even about politics just like blogging about cars for a while on forums with three reader. And then I found myself writing about more political things within the car world, like how Brexit was affecting the car industry, for example.” He notes that the big players in the current media landscape have an “entire business model of right wing anger. That’s not true of the left in the same way. You don’t have big left wing newspapers with big, provocative incendiary headlines all the time. It’s very much a right wing media landscape.”

She’s moved from being the chair of the Labour society to its LGBT+ officer. For this interview, she’s wearing cuffed jeans which proudly identify her as bisex-

LSE’s always bound to be a hotbed of political discussion but I’m happy we managed to have a calm one in this interview. Special thanks are in order to David Webb, LSE Pro-Director for Planning & Resources who kindly allowed us to use the Centre Building’s 12th floor balcony for our photoshoot. This issue couldn’t have happened without you.

interview: Christina Ivey photography: Sebastian Mullen

PART B

Tuesday 10 December

editor: Maya Kokerov

arts & culture

Mary Sibande’s I Came Apart at the Seams

by Maya Kokerov

Just off the main entrance of Somerset House, you enter a room where time moves more slowly than the place from which you came. Two silhouettes in the distance metamorphose into distinct figures, chaotically draped in full-skirted gowns – one in royal blue ruffles with dashes of stark white linen, the other chaotically adorned in hues of pink and purple and placed slightly off kilter, her hands straining for balance.

Dozens of thick tentacles, belonging to the octopus which has seemingly engulfed half of her body, envelop most of her width. Suspended in the air above her are dozens more of these cloth-made sea creatures, threatening to swarm her at any moment.

These are mannequins, of course, but the dim lights and the low growls emanating from the room just behind it puncture any air of ‘festive cheer’ that you may remember from the ice-skating rink or golden tinsel just outside.

This was my first glimpse of Mary Sibande’s exhibition I Came Apart at the Seams. Even before knowing anything about it and discovering it basically by accident, the ambiance immediately made clear that the vibrant sculptures and powerful photographs spoke bounds in support of empowerment, agency and resistance.

The placards on the walls explain that Sibande is a South African artist who imagines herself as the avatar

Sophie, transforming through her historical journey as some sort of alter-ego. She utilises the figure of Sophie to comment on South African modern life and history, exploring revolution, injustice, blackness and femininity in the process.

In the first room, Long Live the Dead Queen, there’s a deep personal and political protest rippling out of the intricately designed textures of the gowns, also echoed in the second room ‘A Reversed Retrogress’.

The blue gown depicts a domestic worker’s uniform and clothes both the model of Sibande and the woman pictured in the second room, where there is an additional superwoman emblem embroidered into it within the frame.

Sibande ties together the modern and historical socio-political dynamics of South Africa, as well as her family’s legacy – it encapsulates a representation of her mother, grand-mother and great-grandmother who were all forced to perform domestic labour.

Their gestures and costumes critique stereotypical representations and narratives of South-African women and invert colonialist depictions of power as they demand space and attention.

The third room lulls you into its haunting arms. You are led to gaze, entrapped, at another transformation of the avatar barred from a pose of seeming escape through tree-like roots behind her, which

also allude to the same octopus tentacles seen in the room before.

Sibande uses colour to signal transition and change and, while the blue costume symbolise inequality and the confinements of domestic life, the purple shows the struggle against apartheid; this is deliberately suggested through the forces of nature which the sea-life suggests, as the obscured body is bursting from its clutches, resiliently frozen in a perpetual state of resistance. The Purple Shall Govern refers to the 1989 Purple Rain protest in Cape Town where protesters were sprayed with purple dye by police.

Finally, the room is coloured angry in The Red Figure, as the painting expresses a “collective disillusionment” with the unfulfilled promises of equality post-apartheid.

Here, Sophie represents a wilful empowerment to rise up against current injustices, fuelled by the encouragement of the anti-apartheid legacy and struggles which came before her. Pictured being pulled by what appear to be venomous-looking pitbulls, Sophie’s final transformation as a healer and a priestess is the answer to contemporary post-colonialist injustice: continued and unapologetic resistance.

I Came Apart at the Seams is an incredibly captivating exhibition which I’m so very lucky to have discovered. Sibande demonstrates how imagination can be a forceful authority when it is embodied with as much meaning as she manages to depict.

Feminism: as watered down your common houseplant

by Camille Hamill In today’s Western world, it’s not up for debate that feminism is more readily accepted than ever. Since my first waking moment of self awareness, I can distinctly recall the feelings of gender injustice and prejudice I faced.

My hopelessness was cultivated through the bitter realisation of the standards and limitations imposed upon me regarding both beauty and behaviour.

This discomfort was underlined by a feeling of helplessness, relatable amongst most women with a Western societal footing. Sexual injustice for privileged women feels more like a social undercurrent than anything more aggressive – but it still needs to be eradicated. I want to make it clear these are not the ravings of an antifeminist or even a post-feminist.

In recent years, feminism has been at the forefront of Western media. It’s been so heavily commercialised that it seems to be slipping on the steps of emancipation. If individual women are able to capitalise on feminism, all the better for it, but it is the insincere corporate appropriation that I can’t stand.

We’re constantly bombarded with brands and celebrities lauding over their recognition of the female struggle, bringing about a social devaluation of Western feminism. In short, the term ‘feminism’ has become as commercially watered down as your common house plant.

“Avacadogood day” and “cut me and I bleed coffee”

seem staggeringly out of place with the serious social adversaries and unrelenting cruelty women face due to inequality. Yet many popular high street stops have removed the powerful connotations of the word “feminism” in such a laissez fair way that it seems as important as getting to your nearest Starbucks.

Even Dior has made a £580 T-shirt which says “we should all be feminists”. Buying this T-shirt can not only show that you’re rich, but also that you are a good person who cares about social injustice! (But not fast fashion). Fashion helps to make feminism exclusive to white, middle class consumers who like to be seen at the forefront of the latest trends.

The average consumer is being allocated a spot in the feminist rally through cute patterns and ignorance rather than through information, action or independent thinking. We are taught to believe that wearing a T-shirt that says “Feminism is my favourite F word” is all we need to do to promote ideological beliefs, nevermind the women in slave labour who laboured to produce said T-shirt.

This new-found image of popular feminism has caused ruptures within the feminist movement. The idea of the ‘feminazi’ – another patriarchal attempt to shame women – has been displaced in favour of the new pop feminist whose only fight for the social cause is that of overpriced merchandise and coffee related puns.

Feminism is once again transformed by the patriarchal media, this time into a mass of oblivious consumers eating up whatever trend that comes their way.

We also seem caught on the snag of feminist empowerment as the main way in which an artist promotes their work. Feminism sells: it’sa trap of triviality.

The commercial slogans and advertisements assembled on the ideas of women’s empowerment are everywhere, so pro-empowerment that they come off trivial and even patronising – such as Nike’s campaign “ladies first, men second”. It only highlights the fact that sexism is still tumbling around in the social undercurrents.

The over-establishment of feminism is definitely a complaint I am privileged to be able to make. If mentions of feminism in a department store get one person interested in delving into these social issues on a deeper level, perhaps the marriage of consumerism and feminism is a net social good. But there is also a danger in forgin alliances with capitalism.

We shouldn’t use the fact that feminism is popular as an argument for current female equality, social liberation or emancipation. A better understanding of feminism through education can block the cheapening of the term so that money can be spent on real issues rather than the big corporations capitalising on the suffering of women.

Colette, a modern soul in an old-fashioned world

by Salomé Melchior

The married life of Sidonie-Gabrielle Colette is the story of a modern soul in an old fashioned world. She was engaged to Willy, an established writer, who overshadowed her. Set in Paris, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, Gabi faces the societal games and hypocritical dances of a macho world.

The eponymous movie narrates the figure of Colette with eternal themes in which a marginalised individual seeks to find a way to the beating heart of society and the self.

Gabrielle is curious yet entrapped, writing for a husband she is overshadowed by. She is her husband’s ghostwriter and therefore his ‘tool’ to success.

Colette writes a series of novels based on the life of Claudine, a girl from the countryside, who is no one but herself. As a consequence of being neglected by her husband, she pours her entire soul into writing. While she remained in the curtains of her husband’s fame for a while, she finally pushes her way through the crowd into the dazzling spotlight, transforming the theatrical medium into her expressive and revolutionary space.

The young lady not only modernised a Parisian milieu: she contributed to the changing face of the world where women progressively acquired a distinctive voice of their own. Woman nevertheless prevails in the murky space where ‘man is the wolf of man’, as Hobbes put it.

REVIEW BEST

BOOK

Autumn by Ali Smith, 2016

by Molly Horner

Less than four months after the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union in 2016, Autumn, by Ali Smith, was published. Unlike most of the previous work of the Man Booker-nominated Scottish author, it had a deliberately fast turnaround as it aimed to be the first in what Smith dubs a “Seasonal Quartet” set in the aftermath of the Brexit vote. The plot follows next-door neighbours Daniel Gluck and Elisabeth Demand, now one hundred and one and thirty-two years old respectively, who first bonded when Elisabeth was a child enthralled by Daniel’s descriptions of works of art.

Fiction that tackles the political, particularly the immediately political, often tends to be crude and without nuance. Clearly Smith was out when this particular carrier pigeon landed, because she deals deft and magisterial prose with intelligent and perceptive political truths. Daniel and Elisabeth’s stories are told with the referendum result pulsing in the background which luminously backlights the storytelling rather than detracting from it.

Smith has subsequently released two more novels in this quartet, Winter and Spring, which are similarly moving, but for me nothing can match the unrestrained beauty of Autumn. I may be biased: the cover is emblazoned with David Hockney’s Early November Tunnel, a painting of his beloved Yorkshire Wolds that I grew up next to. A major subplot explores the work of Pauline Boty, who happens to be one of my favourite painters. But I still think it would be impossible to read Autumn and not feel that it speaks to you directly.

I will unashamedly compare Ali Smith to Charles Dickens: where Dickens was a chronicler of the collective conscious of the Victorian era, Smith articulates a collective unconscious of our endlessly fascinating and puzzling lives and times. You can hear society breathing in her writing. Autumn exists in the liminal spaces: between right and wrong, summer and winter, leave and remain.

ALBUM

To Pimp A Butterfly – Kendrick Lamar

by Sebastian Mullen The 2010s were a musical roller coaster.

Genres were explored, filled, and broken down. Records got labelled, shattered, and spun till artists topped the Forbes. Out of the mire of basic rappers and oblivious pathos-addled crooners, authenticity shone through. We saw this with Kali Uchis, Lorde, Daniel Caesar, and a few others, but one visionary stands above the rest. Capturing an essence of complexity and contradiction, fear and reality, oppression and freedom, Kendrick Lamar has defined the apogee for what rap can achieve. The pinnacle has been reached, and its name is To Pimp A Butterfly.

To Pimp A Butterfly has literally everything.

Not figuratively everything, I mean literally everything you could possibly want from a hip-hop album. You want bangers? Boom, have a King Kunta. You want anthems?

Kerchow, a wild Alright approaches. You want transcendent motifs and themes that culminate in a meditation on the role of celebrities and the responsibility and weight of their positions, with a final conversation between Kendrick and Tupac? Kaplow, it’s Mortal Man. The ambition of the project is frankly ridiculous, and, much like Buzz Aldrin, the man’s on the fucking moon.

Each song in To Pimp A Butterfly takes a slice of life from Compton and Kendrick Lamar’s personal experience. Wesley’s Theory deals with the relationship between Lamar, success, and his hometown. How Much a Dollar Cost handles selfishness, religion, and the oppression of Uncle Sam. The Blacker The Berry speaks on self-hatred, the African-American experience, and hypocrisy. Every track contains pieces of the truth, and, when placed together, they succeed in delivering a stunning portrayal of modern society from Kendrick Lamar’s unique perspective.

It’s hard to fully encapsulate Kendrick Lamar’s sound. He carries himself with such a weight and presence that it’s impossible to imagine modern rap without him. He fully deserves to be held amongst the greatest of all time, an incredible feat for a man of only 32. To Pimp A Butterfly’s concepts and themes have proven to be part of the fabric of the 2010s. When we’re old and grey, playing music for our grandkids, this album will still have life in it. I will certainly be rocking my walker to King Kunta.

OF

FILM THEATRE INTERNET Three Billboards Outside MOMENT Ebbing, Missouriby Amber Iglesia Hamilton blew us all away

by Zehra Jafree

I originally was going to talk about the best and worst play of the decade. I wanted to rave about something artistically mind-blowing, like Curious Incident of the Dog in the Nighttime. It’s a great show. If you haven’t yet, I urge you to find a way to watch it. I love Frantic Assembly. Please hire me. Please. But I couldn’t in good conscience claim that Curious Incident was decade-defining. Not while Hamilton exists.

Look, I’m not happy about this either - talk about an obvious choice. Lin Manuel-Miranda wrote and originally starred in the musical which was inspired by the 2004 biography of Alexander Hamilton by the historian Ron Chernow, and it has been the subject of every theatre reviewer’s cliché for successful play since then. But it’s nevertheless true that Hamilton has had the largest impact — not just on musical theatre, but pop culture at large — out of any show that has come out this decade. It’s indisputable.

The show is noted for a diverse, albeit very male, cast. (If you wanted proper diversity, you should’ve gone to see Emilia last week.)

The idea of deliberately seeking diverse actors and giving no regard to the race of the historical figures they were playing was a bold, unique, and necessary one. Both Broadway and the West End could benefit from taking diversity more seriously: many older, established musicals have fallen into a routine of type-casting. Hamilton actively went against that trend and the result has been incredibly refreshing.

National Snake Day 2016

From Toy Story 2’s release in 2010 to Scors-

by Christina Ivey ese’s recent 3.5-hour epic, this past decade

Everyone remembers where they were on National Snake Day, 2016. After months of an escalating feud between Taylor Swift and Kanye West, two of the most annoying people in the entertainment industry, Kim Kardashian West ended it all over Snapchat.

We got to witness a paradox brought to life: what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object.

The kerfuffle came after the release of Kanye’s single Famous, with its infamous lyric “I think me and Taylor might still have sex. Why? I made that bitch famous,” a reference to the 2009 VMAs, where Kanye took to the stage after Taylor won and said “Yo Taylor, I’m really happy for you, Imma let you finish but Beyoncé had one of the best videos of all time… one of the best videos of all time!”

From that moment until her momentous exposure on National Snake Day, Taylor Swift played the victim. It was a cunning strategy that earned her a loyal, sympathetic fan base until she took it too far. Upon the release of Famous, Taylor Swift complained openly across various media platforms about Kanye’s misogynistic portrayal of her in verse. Kanye stood his ground the entire time. Kim took Kanye’s side, but since she’s known for her remarkable ability of defending every insensitive thought Kanye has ever uttered, this wasn’t too surprising.

Quite apart from its woke-ness and resulting clout, Hamilton is an epic musical. I have never heard a bad review from anyone who has been lucky enough to see it - musical theatre fan or otherwise. I watched it on the West End two summers ago and it’s imprinted itself into my brain ever since.

The soundtrack is beyond perfect and innovative for a traditional performance method like musical theatre. I’ve worked to it, cried to it, gym-ed to it. If it’s not on one of your playlists somewhere, it really should be.

Taylor Swift seemed to be winning the ensuing culture war. She tried to end that man’s whole career – and Kim was having none of it. On the 17th of July 2016, Kim hinted at antics to follow, tweeting “Happy National Snake Day,” followed by several snake emojis. Later that evening, she took to Snapchat to release the phone recording of Taylor giving explicit approval for Kanye to reference her in the songs. Kanye read out the lyrics and Taylor found them amusing. They joked about how the media would make a huge stir about the lyrical content, which would prompt Taylor to come out and say she’d given her approval all along. It became clear that the real victim was Kanye, caught up in the fangs of Taylor’s snakery.

No, Hamilton existing doesn’t mean that diversity issues in the world of musical theatre are solved. Far from it. It also is not to say that Hamilton delivers a perfect example of a diverse cast, see: lack of women. It is, however, a much-needed step in the right direction and a demonstration that people’s race should not matter on stage. It has also made the world of musical theatre feel more approachable — always a good thing. Hamilton has been everywhere since its opening in 2015. Yes it only came halfway through the decade, but it will continue to blow us all away for years to come.

Hours later, Taylor responded saying that she would like to be “excluded from this narrative,” which made no goddamn sense considering that she had spent the better part of seven years meticulously crafting it. But it was too late, the think pieces had already been written, and they were merciless. They accused Taylor of playing up racist tropes of white womanhood and wrongly villainising Kanye, a Black man. I was a fan of neither but at the time, I was dating a Taylor Swift mega-fan so I was obliged to keep up with her career. Thus, I was grateful for the sweet reprieve that followed Taylor’s shattered reputation, where she laid low and didn’t release new music. All because of the events of one National Snake Day. Hiss, hiss bitches.

has been a hearty cinematic meal. The 2010s have seen the unprecedented rise of reboots, remakes, sci-fi, and superhero films. The decade ended with the highest-grossing film ever made: Avengers: Endgame. It’s hard to narrow my decision of best film to one. For any other article on highest rated movies, Inglourious Basterds would have taken the trophy with no competition, but much to my disappointment it was released in 2009. The best film needs to combine stellar acting with timeless themes that have aged well. For me, only one fulfils this checklist: Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri.

Francis McDormand’s portrayal of grieving mother Mildred in this darkly comedic drama is some of the best acting I’ve ever seen. When it comes to describing grief, we often find ourselves tongue-tied. Not McDormand. The focus and devotion she has for Mildred’s anguish over the murder and rape of her daughter makes this a career-defining role. She is the perfect amalgamation of fierce passion and ethereal grace; witnessing her performance is a transformative experience. Her ability to instantly switch off her rowdy repartee and adopt the role of a loving motherly figure articulates her unparalleled artistic talent.

Oftentimes supporting characters are overshadowed when playing alongside powerful and evocative lead performances. Three Billboards avoids this pitfall. The unexpected trio of McDormand, Woody Harrelson (Chief Willoughby), and Sam Rockwell (Dixon) perfectly complement one another. Harrelson mixes determination and vulnerability in his amusing portrayal of family man and police chief Willoughby.

Rockwell’s volatile performance as a racist policeman is even more compelling. Despite his hateful character, he plays a key part in forging the fragile and intense dynamic between the three characters.

We couldn’t forget the stars of the show the billboards. Serving as a catalyst for the events and crises connected to Mildred’s tragedy, they remind us that the criminal justice system fails most rape victims, with very few cases ending in a conviction. Mildred plasters the message “raped while dying. And still no arrests. How come, Chief Willoughby?” Last year this inspired protests by the Justice 4 Grenfell movement, Protesters carried the message “71 dead.

And still no arrests? How come?” It is a political statement that has been adopted globally, specifically in the aftermath of the school shootings in Florida.

This film is timeless and a deserving winner, designed to make you feel before you think. The unmistakable wisdom of the film resonates throughout: “anger only begets more anger”— a line from Mildred’s ex-husband’s 19-year-old girlfriend. She read it on a bookmark.

Tuesday 10 December Editors: Amber Iglesia and Zehra Jafree

THE THEATRE INTERNET BOOK Morrissey MOMENT List of the LostbybyMolly Spider-Man: Turn Off the Horner Dark

by Zehra Jafree

There is nothing in the world I wish I had seen live more than Spider-Man: Turn off the Dark — and I missed seeing Beyonce in 2009 because I was fighting with my mum.

A Spider-Man musical, how fucking iconic.

The musical opened on Broadway on the 14th of June 2011. The premise was already dreadful, and the execution was somehow worse. Turn Off the Dark was doomed before it went anywhere near the stage. I’m not even talking about the title yet - producer Tony Adams passed away from a stroke in early production. A director was fired and Phil McKinley was subsequently hired.

For the superstitious that could have been a sign, or at least those involved in Turn Off the Dark should have taken it as one.

What’s interesting though was that Julie Taymor, one of the playwrights, was one of the lyricists in The Lion King (1997). I mean talk about a fall.

Look, the radioactive spider has a role and her own number. They use bungees. Spider-man broke his leg. Its a musical about fucking Spider-Man, I mean, what else is there to say. Search up the trailer, you’re welcome.

Covfefe

by Christina Ivey

On 31 May 2017, shortly after midnight, the 45th POTUS tweeted “Despite the constant negative press covfefe”. Yes, he made a spelling error, and yes, the liberal American media went absolutely insane about it and pretended like they didn’t know he was just trying to spell coverage.

It turned into an awful Gen X meme, where a bunch of bars and cafés in Washington DC started selling covfefe-inspired drinks. It was cringe. I don’t even like Trump, but of all the things to take the piss out of him for, a spelling error is not one of them. Some people took the error as hallmark sign of his “low IQ”. I hate when Trump makes relatively small language errors, because all that ever results from it is lots of ableism and some borderline eugenicist tropes in the media and the public. It’s a similar vibe when people attack him for being fat, as if the root of his malfeasance is his body weight.

I get it, Trump is fun to hate. But let’s hate him for the right things. He’s putting migrant children in concentration camps at the US-Mexico border. ICE is now the quasi-Gestapo of America. He’s led the effort to rollback of all the progressive policies made in the first half of the decade.

Please, let ‘covfefe’ die.

It’s not as if Morrissey needed additional opportunities to provoke unanimous public disgust in the 2010s. His outspoken support for the far-right Islamophobic political party For Britain, his concert performance with a “Fuck the Guardian” t- shirt, and his assertion that “everyone ultimately prefers their own race,” may have done it for the ex-Patron Saint of Indie music. Morrissey didn’t need to write a novel as woefully narrated, bafflingly structured, and bluntly misogynistic as List of the Lost. But he did anyway.

Morrissey’s previous foray into print was his 2013 autobiography which, despite being buoyed on entirely by self-indulgence, was at least a compelling and entertaining read. Being published prior to his egregious political outbursts made it easier to be forgiving of his outrageous narcissism: he demanded it be immediately published under the Penguin Classics imprint.

List of the Lost, however, has no such saving grace. The plot - although it feels charitable to refer to it as such - follows an American sprint team in the 1970s cursed by a demon after they inadvertently kill it. The characters are barely formed and narrated in a wholly inarticulate way. Though a blessedly short 180 pages, the novel drags hugely, a problem exacerbated by excruciating dialogue that often spans pages.

The most unforgivable episode has to be the sex scene, which made me cringe so hard I felt certain I had ruptured my spleen.

I don’t wish to disturb any readers who might be eating, so I won’t quote it in full, but beware that it contains the sentence: “His bulbous salutation extenuated his excitement as it smacked its way into every muscle of Eliza’s body except for the otherwise central zone.” Yikes.

List of the Lost is more than just terrible, terrible prose. It’s an example of the cultural re-polarization that solidified in the 2010s: Morrissey’s exquisite music and twirling gladioli defined the latter part of the twentieth century. Now he is left a social pariah, clutching a Literary Review Bad Sex Award and wearing a For Britain badge.

ALBUM

Oh, Lewis Capaldi - how do I despise thee by Seth Rice

Oh, Lewis Capaldi - How do I despise thee?

Let me count the ways. Divinely Uninspired To A Hellish Extent is the worst album of the decade. Before listening to the 23-year-old public nuisance, I had in my head that his sound would be in the sphere of Jamie T. I would not have cared if it was - this would at least make sense given his ‘indie’ appearance and (unreciprocated) affection for Oasis. I certainly did not expect the horrendous din this braggart has produced on his first album.

My introduction to the Scot was the most popular track from DUTAHE, Someone You Loved. It tells the story of a dumped boyfriend. Only a man boy with Lewis Capaldi’s strained style and tart vocals could produce a song and story as sickly as this. A consequence of the (supremely unhealthy) relationship ending is that his partner is no longer there to ‘numb all the pain’. ‘All the pain’? Capaldi seems like exactly the sort of entitled narcissist who would see this as a reasonable expectation. Grow up, pal.

One musical issue with the album is a soul-destroying lack of diversity. The overwhelming majority of tracks begin with similar, if not identical, piano notes. The stories unrelentingly yelled at us here have been told for decades by exactly the same corporate trash this singer pretends to distance himself from. Perhaps that’s unfair — he does seem at least somewhat self-aware. To some, the irony is loveable; to the more cynical of us, this is the problem.

What could be worse than someone who understands how formulaic and soulless the music industry is actively participating in it? It is almost impressive: Divinely Uninspired manages to be as cloying as the worst of Coldplay with the arrogance of the worst of Kanye.

I wouldn’t like this album if he were my mate. I wouldn’t say to him ’well done’ after a performance at the local pub. I would sit him down, tell him he is wrong then point him in a direction away from me.

All this and I haven’t even mentioned that awful title.

FILM

Emoji Movie

by Amber Iglesia

It’s an epic adventure that follows a smartp h o n e trying to save the world from being deleted. What could possibly go wrong? Everything.

This half-hearted film is uninspiring; it completely misrepresents the way teenagers communicate and thus failing to appeal to any audience.

The narrative is lost, bland, and boring.

While the idea of producing a film based on a globally recognised phenomenon like emojis may seem appealing, the result is at its core simply a cash grab by producers. Some excruciatingly terrible films are somewhat redeemed by moments of humour, wit, and excitement. The Emoji Movie elects not to do this, presenting us instead with a calamitous comedy that is nowhere near as addictive as the smartphone apps it explores.

Sometimes films that focus on product branding, such as The Lego Movie, deserve the benefit of the doubt. But not this one.

It is filled with an absurd amount of product placement, including Whatsapp, Candy Crush, and even Just Dance, that make it more of an ad campaign than a credible film. The artistic calibre was clear from the very first scene, when the Meh emoji declares: “emojis are the most important form of communication ever invented.” Yes, that’s a line in this film. Not the telephone, moving picture, written word, or even the fax, but...emojis.

You’d think that with a cast studded with the likes of comedian James Corden there would be multiple comedic scenes, but no.

Most of the jokes are surface-level humour about the fact that the characters are nothing but emojis — how original.

The Emoji Movie isn’t an unnecessary film with no plot, but simply a money-making ploy. The blatant advertising and lazy designs make the film unwatchable and visually embarrassing. How could anything else be named worst film of the 2010s?

WORST

SPORT

CAROL CONTINUES TRADITION OF DEBAUCHERY WITH THE BEST OF THE AU OUT IN FULL FORCE SETH RICE Sport Editor

O

h Carol! I am but a fool. Darling, I love you, even though you treat me cruel.

Once a year, the stars align and suddenly sinking a tepid beer at 6:45 AM becomes not only normal but thrilling; people who never smoke become chimneys in the conviviality of the Zoo smoking area; and Sheila from your LSE100 class ends up going home with Bob from your football team. How this ancient tradition manages every year to filter through the university is beyond me. Carol is a caricature of student life - what a 14 year-old imagines when staring out his or her class window. Some heroes change out of their costumes to do class presentations seven pints deep.

Some mavericks actually attempt to claim they are ‘ill and so will, unfortunately, be unable to make it to the class today’. Poor teachers - do they know it’s Carol time at all? As for me, you may ask what I thought of it. There is a fuzzy gap from around 12:00-20:00 which I will try as best as I can to remember. I may make some of it up for comic effect.

As is the case every year, I was unable to sleep the night before. Someone summed the feeling up as being like ‘a kid on Christmas Eve’. And so, at 03:30 I set five alarms for 05:45, 05:46...etc. I stuck on an Agatha Christie: Poirot to aid with the slumber and dropped onto my pillow. Unfortunately, the soothing Radio 4 programme sent me into a deep sleep and I awoke at 06:30, 15 minutes before hosting, to my housemate’s ejaculation of ‘Merry Christmas!’ I showered, shaved and slipped into my dress. I put on my wig, drew a mole above my upper lip and thus became Marilyn Monroe.

The first beer went down surprisingly well. So did the second and the third. In all honesty, the adrenaline allows one to see pints off with ease.

Some, however, were a little too bitter to force a smile; jealousy is a disease, get well soon hun.

‘Spoons’ as an establishment is questionable; I went off the chain when chewing on their feeble attempt at dairy and meat-free meals. Grim. As a place to get plastered, it is somewhat okay. Our time here was short-lived however, owing to small disturbances here and there. And so began the brief walk across Lincoln’s Inn Fields to the Three Tuns.

This was an enjoyable one. One chap has decided to do The Worm on damp concrete and a pair of rogues had a little skirmish outside the gates. Hilarious. How can anyone take themselves seriously enough to scrap on Carol, a day of love? Anyhow, a relatively short wait meant that we reached Tuns having only queued for twenty minutes or so.

Comments on my figure continued throughout the day and I inadvertently made several lads question themselves with my androgynous good looks and magnetic charm. Joined by 19 or so Andy Warhols, my Marilyn outfit did more than sexually confuse; I was surprised to hear so many AU members unable to get the reference. Read a book, Christ.

At this point my memory fades a little, so here is a list of five things I do remember from Tuns: • • • • •

Spending too much money Spending too much time queueing for a pint Really annoying the bloke managing the photobooth Being able to see very little without my glasses Telling everyone my debit card PIN [it is a very good one to be fair]

The first three, I think we can all claim for ourselves.

The tube journey to Wetherspoons at 08:30 is always a fan favourite. There is something about telling bankers that ‘we’re getting binned, you’re going to work’ that puts a huge smile on my face. I think it’s the idea that in ten years, I will try and get on the tube only to be stopped by twenty miscreants chanting about how much more fun they have than me. This is part of the circle of life, the natural order of things, so to speak. The public was generally remarkably accepting of their lower standard of living, filming us with smiles rather than disgust.

A friend has told me that we spent four hours in the student bar. How time flies when you’re battered. A pit stop at Shakespeare’s Head for a couple and my band of merry Warhols and I were off on our way to Zooooo. I do not take much pleasure in getting so much enjoyment out of Zoo Bar. That’s a muddled sentence. I loathe the sticky humidity of the cage, the pervasive aroma of red bull and the tightly packed smoking area. I know not what I love about it. Something ineffable. The ex-

perience of Carol felt different. Not only even more dense, not only more loose but more strange.

The smoker’s resembled a bad trip with a Looney Tunes character fighting what my vague recollection tells me was a blueberry. For some unknown reason, I have seen it fit to visually remind several pals that I am indeed still a man beneath the dress.

A group of us left the bar for some food in Chinatown, deciding hurriedly on an ‘all you can eat’ buffet. Fifteen minutes of really poor and wholly ineffective bartering left us paying over a tenner for some salty sludge, lining both our stomachs and arteries with whatever the ‘bad cholesterol’ is called. This left a ‘food-settling’ time of at least an hour. The AU diffused and went back to various people’s homes; many were not to be seen for the rest of the night. This next part I really do not remember and I do not contain the moral flimsiness to lie to our loyal readership.

I reached my home to find two Andy Warhols smoking in my kitchen talking politics. Not in the mood for such intellectual rigour, I threw a bulb of garlic at one. Just one of many strange moves from myself throughout the day. We then hung out in my room, lit some incense and moved onto less exhausting topics of discussion. The recuperation process was underway. I changed out of my dress and slipped on some of my own clothes, feeling instantly the imminent ending of Carol 2019. I returned to a friend’s place and fought off the sobering up phase, knowing full well I would not make it out were my body and mind to recover. A long walk back to the Venue was compounded by the sight of the queue. In fact, ‘queue’ is a grandiose term for the disorganised mass of reprobates trying to get inside the ‘club’. Feeling myself becoming grumpy, I resigned myself to the night and left. I will ask you to forgive your Sport Editor for not completing the final stage, on the grounds that I really just couldn’t be bothered.

And so, with headphones in and The Beatles playing, I strolled home, reeling through in my mind the kaleidoscope of events of the day with a slight pang of discomfort and a definite feeling of fatigue.

PHOTOS FROM T H E B I G D AY

SOCIAL The six types of Tories at university

T

he Compromiser: Everything that the Compromiser says and believes is driven by fear: fear of the EU, fear of being called “racist”, fear of being found out as a Lib Dem among his port-and-policy friends. Despite his 6/10 charisma, the Compromiser’s beliefs are absolutely meh, and introduces themself with that cringey fence-sitter’s dogwhistle “socially liberal and economically conservative” – often with a supercilious smile. They will apologise to everyone for everything: leaving the EU, austerity, the Windrush scandal...one wonders why they don’t just join another party, until one realises that would take a whiff of decisiveness.

Often found sitting at the back of Tory talks, nervously putting their hand up and being ignored repeatedly, the Compromiser looks upon more daring types of Tory with a mixture of fear, shame, and lust.

Heroes: the Lib Dems, David Cameron (always brought up with a spiel about gay marriage).

Get the look: combine any pair of chinos with a button-up shirt and leather shoes, and do not hit the gym under any circumstances. Your entire body must whisper “weakness” in a highpitched voice The High Tory: After his post-Oxford-rejection crisis, the High Tory decided that it was OK to wear his new tweed jacket (which he bought from Marks & Spencer) in the city. Alienated by modern London, the The High Tory dreams of an England that has returned to the 18th century: a thriving Church, no sex before marriage (not that it would make a difference to him), no drugs or modern art, and none of those ghastly tower blocks. When this revolution comes, he will assume his rightful place in the Landed Gentry, and fulfil his duties to the country from a delightful house in Surrey – never mind that he only went to grammar school, can’t read Greek, and still doesn’t realise that everyone at Eton would hate him. In the meantime, he spurts out diatribes against the “Conservatives”— who aren’t conservative enough—and grumbles that the Compromiser gets laid more than him. Where are his fair English maidens?

Waiting for marriage, he tells himself.

Heroes: Jacob Rees-Mogg, Roger Scruton, Peter Hitchens.

Get the look: wear an awful three-piece suit, ideally double-breasted, with the bottom button of your waistcoat done up (if you know, you know).

You must be white (Italians do NOT count).

The Thatcherite: A one-trick pony, and that trick is free markets. The Thatcherite bangs on incessantly about something-something-low-taxes, something-something-incentives, something-something-choice; their philosophy is an incoherent fruit salad of consequentialist and deontological justifications for libertarianism combined with a piss-poor understanding of human nature. Despite the world being so obvious to the Thatcherite, they can’t see that the British character will never accept their radicalism, nor will the Tory party push it . Deep down the Thatcherite secretly wishes they were American anyway. Oh yes, the Thatcherite, that lover of freedom in the streets, secretly wishes they would be pinned down and annexed by the Americans in the sheets.

The Thatcherite is often a she, the lone attractive girl in a circle of otherwise nervous Tory males, who surround her at events and pray for a whisper, a smile, an acknowledgement of their meagre existence.

Heroes: Margaret Thatcher, Milton Friedman, an assortment of painfully American Americans.

Get the look: unremarkable and similar to the Compromiser, but more oomph – try undoing buttons to leave chest hair (if available) on show, and use your body language to say “I am

NOT a virgin.”

The Social Climber: The exact inverse of the High Tory: instead of having grandiose views and no status to justify them, the Social Climber seeks status at all costs, and believes in less than nothing (lest a view he/she holds get in the way of their next move). The Social Climber, when not delivering fake smiles to unimportant MPs in the hope of another Parliament work-shadowing gig, will be found back-stabbing and conniving to gather support for their campaign to lead their uni’s Tory society. But why would they want to win such an unpopularity contest? Having not gone to private school, the Social Climber is permanently insecure about their background, and sees the Tory party as a conveyor belt to semi-aristocracy – one day, yes, one day, they will be invited to Henley (if you don’t know, apologies, you aren’t rah enough). Fortunately LSE does not have many of these, but at lesser London universities the insecurity is all the stronger, and the climbing, thus, all the cringier…

Heroes: themselves.

Get the look: wear a dark blue suit or similarly formal dress, and augment your confident appearance with a half-finished glass of white wine. You must be good looking (if not, try: the Compromiser).

The Bordan P Jeterson Anti-SJW Footsoldier: The Thatcherite’s embarrassing younger brother. Despite watching every jordan_peterson_reks_angery_feminist.mp4 video available on YouTube and reading every subsequent Reddit thread, the Footsoldier has not cleaned his room, bucko; however, he is more than happy to point out how gosh-darn ridiculous it is for society to become more accommodating for people with mental health and sexual issues. Like the Thatcherite, the Footsoldier has an unhealthy obsession with American politics, and his support for the Tories exists soley because he has no other party to turn to. Unlike the Thatcherite, however, he focuses mainly on social issues and looks for headlines to get angry about.

Heroes: Bordan P Jeterson, Ben Shapiro, “intellectual” dark web weebos like Sam Harris.

Get the look: stop showering and shaving for a week, then combine a flannel shirt with a fedora and possibly an ugly suit jacket. Try to develop a stutter and avoid eye contact at Tory events.

The Silent Majority. Did you really think the aforementioned freaks decide elections? Look around you: rugby lads and hockey lasses, econ and law students, international and private school kids, the children of well-off Indian parents… Among these quiet patriots, you find your Tories. The Silent Majority don’t attend Tory events or mix with the other Tory types because they simply aren’t freaks, nor do they painfully announce their views on Facebook.

Instead, their beliefs are informed by an unpolished but decent common sense, which they got from their normal parents and will pass onto their normal children. When they aren’t interviewing for consulting grad schemes, the Silent Majority can be found pre-drinking, cheering for their sports teams, or submitting their essays late. The men of this type laugh at 99% of what they see as left-wing frigidness, but they daren’t say so outside of their own circles – lest they compromise their chances with the hockey lasses.

Heroes: unrelated to politics.

Get the look: take a mild interest in fitness and personal hygiene, then throw on sports bottoms (possibly featuring Dulwich College’s badminton team logo) with a jumper. Don’t try too hard.

Sebastian Shemirani

H

Cliteracy Class 6: A Tale of Tinder Titillation

ear ye! Hear ye! We gather here today to commemorate the binding of two souls; one flesh and one algorithm. Just a year ago after one too many drinks, Miss PG made a fated scroll through the Google Play Store, hesitantly hit download and a fire was lit within; Tinder and Pussy tied the knot.

You see, Pussy wasn’t always such a sultry slut, at least not outwardly. Going to an all-girl’s school does wonders for crippling social development, self-confidence, and general lack of awkwardness.

Coupled with the discomfort of being a spotty teen and a confused bisexual with raging hormones, it was a miracle that Pussy caught a suitor on her fuck-fishing rod. Less shocking was the fact that the captured creature was an equally spotty and awkward teen; a boy!

The two teens found ease in each other’s social discomfort, for a very long time, four years!

Things weren’t bad, they grew

together. Until one person (not Pussy) decided they could do better (they couldn’t).

But hey Pussy aint sour, she’s sweet and better without him. Suddenly she lost her protection from the world of fuck-fishing (and PG needed her big-Os). A terrifying realisation overcame her; she would have to learn to flirt! The situation was dire, the boy had been an easy catch because, well, he was a 15-year old boy then. Now at 20, Pussy had to learn to use her womanly ways in her favour. But on who? And where would she practice?

Tinder enters from stage right Tinder was to Pussy what training wheels are to an excitable 5-year-old, desperate to ride but too vulnerable to cope with a fall. It let her whiz through prospective fish in the sea with no fear of heartbreak, while getting to test out every line in the book. From subtle seduction to innuendo, she tried it all to find what worked. Tinder rebuilt her self-confidence with time. People found her desirable and at last, she could put up a fight in the flirtatious sparring following a match. What’s more, for fellow bisexuals out there, Tinder was a directory for your sexual orientation, bypassing the awkward tango of trying to figure out which way a girl (or guy) swings.

So many adventures ensued; some led to nothing and some to everything, but always to a good story. Tinder had helped Pussy bloom into the confident, sex-positive queen she now is. But, at some point

5-year-olds turn 6, their skin thickens, and they can brush themselves off after a fall.

So, the training wheels come off. They supported you well, but they hold you back from the most thrilling speeds. This moment came for Pussy when she matched with a curious creature with a strange accent. A few messages later and coffee was planned the next day. There was no need to hide behind an algorithm, safely swiping from home, she could do this alone. Pussy set Tinder aside, on standby if needed in future. She hopped on her bike and rode that bad boy into the sunset, fast and slow.

I hope my tale is of use, my cliteragents – Tinder served me well and it can do the same for you if used well and thoughtfully.

With that in mind, here are some useful tips for Tindering in London town: 1.

Tell your friends where you’ll be meeting up and with which lucky person. Maybe even share your live location.

2. Meet for a coffee or a pint – somewhere public and not too loud, where you can lay your flirt down heavy (and they’ll actually hear you).

3. Keep your friends updated (eg I went on a date and messaged my friend that I was finding it physically difficult to not jump the guy’s bones – you know, anything to tell them you’re okay).

Pussy Galore

sexual-groundworks.talk

When I talk about sex, I’ve always found it hard to strike the balance between frankness, sincerity, and discretion. In high school, for instance, a friend and I had an absurd ritual where we’d greet each other by shouting “Sex?” across the cafeteria, delighting in the exceeding discomfort and helplessness of the teaching staff.

and strangers alike of the merits of open relationships. To be clear, I didn’t really know what I was talking about, and I suspended the campaign when my oh-so open relationship at the time came to a not-so happy ending. Neither did my pleading ever change anyone’s mind, though in all honesty I had never really expected that it would. With sex talk, there is great risk of preaching to the Sex makes for great spectacle when you’re choir and being a pain to the rest. intent on it. I went to a co-ed boarding school where sex between pupils was for- Looking back, I wholeheartedly own up to bidden (not that the school could enforce my past pretentiousness. Given that I write the ban). Sexual expression was a surefire a sex column, I suppose I’m still quite preway of irritating authorities, and some male tentious today. Even worse, I don’t really see friends and I deeply enjoyed delivering per- a way out. A rather old-fashioned friend of forming same-sex attraction, much to the mine, for instance, refuses to read this and distress of our headmaster. Yet our school says he’d have me censored for inapproprishenanigans lacked in substance: we didn’t ateness. It doesn’t seem like I’m doing a parsay much, and little followed from it. We ticularly good job at starting a conversation. never developed a proper programme; our talk about sex consisted mainly of jibes and Part of the difficulty is that we consider sex, empty phrases. perhaps rightfully, a private matter. Talking about our own sex lives means revealing From my first year at LSE, I tried a different possibly uncomfortable vulnerabilities. It’s strategy: talking very candidly about sex tricky to make even abstract arguments to anyone who would listen. Oversharing about sex without people drawing conclumore often than not, I was so outspoken that sions about your own choices. The other day, friends generally identified me with my sex- I found myself defending shoe fetishists ual libertinism. While it was great fun, the (please don’t ask) against a stranger calling main result was much reference to “German “those people sick and pitiful”—afterwards dungeon porn” in daily chitchat. she treated me as if I had serious issues and kept her distance from me.

Undoubtedly the silliest episode of that Even though I’m frustrated, I’m still keen to time was my crusade to convince friends talk about sex. Despite the repercussions,

the risks of exposure, and the ridicule, I find that our sex lives can only improve when we talk about them openly. I don’t buy into the idea that secrecy somehow makes sex better: that may be true of some thrilling affairs and copy room moments, but few get those anyway. Sex is very personal, but it’s also a social and moral matter. It’s hard to navigate that dual notion by sharing just the right amount. Ultimately, we can only appreciate all the things we do right and wrong, in both an abstract and an applied sense, if we discuss them.

An ex-partner once asked me why it’s so important for me to keep in touch with her and all of my other exes. Firstly because I still like most of them. The other reason is educational: there is no better way of putting yourself under continued scrutiny than asking an ex, “What’s wrong with me?” After each coffee, every call, I feel utterly battered, rightfully so, and I’m better off for it.

Merlin likes to talk about sex, good and bad, and he’d love for more people to join the conversation. If you want to share a thought, story, or criticism, feel free to contact m.krzemien@lse.ac.uk. (Nothing will be shared without prior consent.)

Merlin Krzemien

Tuesday 10 December editor: Analía Ferreyra

lifestyle/advice/satire Big red ball in NAB ‘might fall at any moment’ warns LSE Director Dame Minouche Shafik has warned staff and students this week that the ‘big red ball’ suspended in the NAB was not nearly as securely fastened as ‘we could have previously hoped for’. The Director’s response came after reports that several management students had become hypnotised by the swinging dislodged ball.

Villalonga: my father’s hometown As the holidays roll around, and with just one week left of the term, I catch myself thinking about my origins. As a third culture kid, it’s difficult for me to identify with a single location. My mother is American, my father is Argentine, I grew up in three countries (each in a different continent) and five cities. Yet amidst all the moving, there’s one place that has always stayed the same and shaped the way that I approach situations.

Villalonga, pronounced “Vee-shah-long-gah,” is my father’s hometown, population 5,000 people. Villalonga is located in northern Patagonia, Argentina. My dad was born to a Bolivian father, whose mother crossed the Bolivian-Argentine border with eight children to escape domestic violence; and an Argentine mother, daughter to two Spanish immigrants.

Thinking back to my Villalonga visits, my earliest memories begin with dance and makeup.

At three years old, my Tía––a dance teacher–– brought me into her flamenco class in la casa de la cultura. My favorite part about these classes is that I wore flamenco shoes that made a loud noise when I stomped my feet. I remember falling in love with the big flamenco hoop earrings and flowy skirt that my Tía wore to the class, and, of course, her shoes.

The second-earliest memory I have is of my cousin Ana. I remember her dressing me up and applying bright red lipstick on me during my endless Villalonga summers. Ana has

always had a timeless taste in fashion, and, despite having never graduated high school and her constant job-switching, she has always impressed me with her ability to put on an authentic outfit.

From my experiences with my Tía and Ana, I have questioned what fashion entails. Is fashion about the brand name, or the sense of confidence that a woman builds from it?

For my Tía, her flamenco clothes elevate her perception of her job, while Ana’s style has given her confidence, hiding her insecurities about having no high school diploma. For me, I dress to confront situations that make me anxious.

The day my father took me to meet his friend, a senior partner at a top law firm in New York, I needed to look the part. My accessory that day was a sticky-note in my pocket with an already-memorised list of questions. I put on my favorite pair of tight black pants, a blouse, and my new jacket; I perceive lawyers as dressing crisply.

I know my audience and can anticipate exactly the look that I need to present with such precision that even I find myself flabbergasted. In high school, as I headed to my Saturday dance practices, I used to glance in the hallway mirror at my black leggings, sneakers, and leotard, and think ‘wow, I look like someone during their Dancing with the Stars practice.’

My ability to dress the part is in tune with

my ability to connect with anyone within 30 seconds. Where am I from? Well, if you are European I would definitely tell you I am Spanish by nationality. If you are American then I would definitely highlight my New Yorker origins. If you are Latin American, I would definitely bring up my Argentine father and six year long Chilean residence. I’d be shocked if I ever gave the same response to this question twice.

The outfit I am saving is buried at the back of my closet. I have worn each of these pieces before, but never together: my favorite pair of tight black pants, black over-the-knee heeled boots, and a black poncho. I envision myself wearing this complete outfit years from now, as I board a plane, but I still need to buy a bright red suitcase.

When I wear this outfit, I will be a businesswoman on my way to negotiate new renewable energy opportunities abroad. I will be exploring the middle ground between low-income consumers and firms offshoring abroad, to moderate the impacts of business decisions on low-income consumers. My relatives in Villalonga are exactly those people lacking a voice at the negotiation table, and I guarantee I’ll put on Ana’s bright red lipstick as I enter the office that day.

occasionally falling off and hitting people.

Due to budget constraints and drained administrative resources resulting from LSE’s newfound attempts to buy London Bridge due to an unforeseen plummet in real estate value, very little can be done at the moment.

“Besides”, opined LSE Cultural Director Max Fucke, “c’est l’art”.

Asked to elaborate, Mr Fucke expounded: “this beautiful apple is a post-modernist atelierist response to the general ennui endemic to pseudo-colonial student micro-civilisation”. This juicy gobstopper cannot go”.

“We had originally hoped the thin metal cable would hold for 20 years, but it is increasingly clear that it’s getting weaker and weaker every second” Minouche warned. Vincent Miles, amateur engineer, corroborated the Director’s testimony: “Look at that metal cable holding that big fucking thing up there.”

A representative for LSE’s real estate division offered some words He went on: “It’s just too thin. of advice to concerned students: Anyway don’t sit underneath it”. “In the event the worse happens, The big red ball was also appar- and that extremely thin cable ently making creaking noises snaps don’t run down the ramps and swinging in a pendulum-like towards the Sheikh Theatre; that’s fashion. Bemused students also what the ball will want you to do”. reported the little metal balls on We reached out to the fake estate the side of the big red one were division and no one responded.

Ross Lloyd

Analía Ferreyra

Maybe we’re the weird ones We students like to think of ourselves as woke and free-spirited compared to the older generations in our society. But we should show caution towards congratulating ourselves on this too quickly. Just consider the woke and free-spirited hippies of the 1960s who hated war and loved drugs just as much as we do. They seemed nice and agreeable!

They all vote UKIP now.

Alright, so how come it is exclusively the domain of the young to express themselves through the hedonistic pleasures of the world? Why can’t I go out with my nan without it being weird? Why do we have an unspoken agreement to act like old people don’t have sex? The answer seems clear: our time at university is when we can be open about what we want before we actually have to do something with our lives. Once we leave, there will be no more Facebook videos of us kicking

bins over. Ever.

So what, humans are just animals who have deep, sinful desires for their whole lives, but we hide any signs of them once we need a job? If that answer seems flawed to you, you’re not alone, and you’re probably wrong and it’s probably the truth.

But it might not be – the truth might be something much, much darker.

We students are the weird ones.

Rather than everyone else suppressing their true cravings, maybe we’re just overly honest and we don’t realise it because we’re all the same. Take this newspaper for example: last week, there was a new article in the ‘Cliteracy’ series. Now, I personally love the series, but let’s just say an article like that probably wouldn’t make it into the Sunday Times because Cliteracy isn’t a subject parents want being taught in schools. The article told me

about what porn to watch. And I read it. I actually read it. And I actually just admitted that I read it.

Isn’t that meant to be a private thing? What do I do if my mum reads this now?

Another article last week was about attitudes towards homosexuality. I edited it. Yes I’m a legend.

And I thought it was a really good read. It finished with the idea that if I copped off with a 6’4” bearded bloke, it would make me better at understanding the sexual impulses of my girlfriend. It goes without saying that this is a stupid idea because I will clearly never find love in this cruel world, but if we remove that from the equation, it might be a decent shout. But will we really admit that in ten years’ time when we’re all coupled up with our other halves (excluding me)?

And finally, there is this new drugs policy the SU is trying to push through, rightfully aimed at im-

proving the protections for those who use them.

This will doubtless be a successful campaign, not only because it is in the best interests of everyone, but because its advertising involves putting a cross through ‘anti-drugs’. I back it, but like, how has the SU got away with that? Drugs are still illegal, as easy as it is to forget. If you take the questionnaire, a part of the campaign, you’ll see that by the end of it the ‘I don’t do drugs’ option stops being included in the questions. No-one was clicking it anyway, but you’d think the SU would at least pretend that people like that exist?

Whether students are the excessive sex pests or other people are the repressed sex pests I don’t really know. I suppose at least we can say that everyone sits somewhere on a spectrum of how much of a sex pest they are. But let’s not get into that right now.

Miles McCollum