Monday, January 16th, 2012
The LSESU Labour society is thoroughly outraged to hear that students from our institution allegedly took part in a drinking game that glorified Nazism and led to an assault on a Jewish student.
One of the greatest aspects of the LSE has always been the diversity of our student body. We must not let the narrow-mindedness and intolerance demonstrated by a minority of students harm the inclusive atmosphere of our campus.
We echo the words of Jay Stoll, president of the LSE’s Jewish Society, who said: “Nazi glorification and antisemitism have no place in our universities, which should remain safe spaces for all students.”
We believe that discrimination of all people is abhorrent and has no place at the LSE.
If anything more should come from this event we wish it to be greater awareness that prejudice hasn’t been eradicated in our university, nor in Britain, and that we have plenty of work to do to achieve a society free from intolerance.
LSESU Labour fully condemns the actions of the small minority of students on the LSESU Ski Trip and will support any future initiatives on campus designed to create the safe environment that all students, no matter what their background, deserve.
Wednesday, January 11th, 2012
LSESU Secretary Jack Tindale on the previous year’s performance for Ed Miliband.
After a transformative period at the height of British politics, a long-serving party of government is finally kicked out of office. Once in Opposition, it elects a new leader pledging substantive ideological and administrative reform of the battered electoral vehicle, yet is still racked with criticism, both internal and external.
The above paragraph is clearly relevant to Ed Miliband’s Labour Party, yet it could also be applied to Hugh Gaitskell in 1955, Ted Heath in 1964, Michael Foot in 1980 and William Hague in 1997. It is often said that the worst job in British politics is that of Leader of the Opposition. In that respect, the only noteworthy issue would be if the member for Doncaster North was substantively ahead in the polls.
In many respects, Mr Miliband has some issues to be proud of at the end of his first full year in office. Whilst opinion polls are a tedious irrelevance at this point in the electoral cycle, Labour have seen their first real lead in the polls since 2007, a trend that has re-emerged as the post-Veto bounce begins to wear off for the Conservative Party. From a purely partisan level, Miliband can point to strongly holding seats at five by-elections, returning a Labour government in Wales and gaining over eight-hundred council seats in the local elections in England. The shellacking the party suffered in May at the hands of the Scottish National Party was one suffered by all Unionist parties at the hands of the seemingly unstoppable Alex Salmond, but even the most ardent critic of Mr Miliband would concede that the defeat was due to a dire performance by the Labour team at Holyrood rather than any personal failing on the overall leader.
In pure arithmetic therefore, Miliband seemingly has little to worry about beyond the possible collapse of the Union. However, a more in-depth look reveals matters of genuine concern.
Firstly, there is the matter of economic competence. At a time when the British economy is undergoing anaemic growth, stubbornly-high unemployment and declining consumer confidence, it is astonishing to see that the Prime Minister and Chancellor are trusted far more by the electorate than their counterparts on the Opposition Benches. This is less due to latent ability by David Cameron and George Osborne than it is to the persistent inability of Miliband and Ed Balls to shed the blame that the last government still has for fiscal mismanagement, one that is far from unwarranted.
By a considerable margin, voters seem to trust the Conservative Party more than Labour to nurse the British economy back to health. Although the Opposition rarely gains from economic failures by the government, respect is a rare resource for politicians to draw upon. Although Ed Balls may yet be proved correct on the need to halt some of the government’s more draconian measures with regards to areas such as pension reform, Labour cannot shy away from the fact that the public feel confused by the party’s stance on the dominant political issue of the day. Ed Miliband’s greatest failure this year has been his lack of drive with regards to formulating a coherent economic strategy for the general public. Jim Murphy, The Shadow Defence Secretary recently conceded the £5 billion in cuts as a financial necessity. Murphy, one of the most able members of the Shadow Cabinet, has set out a policy of fiscal restraint that the rest of the party must begin to accept. A refusal to accept most of the coalition government’s cuts should be accompanied by a clear strategy for reducing the budget deficit by other means.
So far, nothing Labour have said has resonated with the general public, almost two years on from the General Election, the last government gets the blame by a margin of almost two-to-one. The road to economic stewardship is perhaps the most uneven one in politics. As a result, the Opposition must conclusively decide what route they wish to take rather than a shambolic stance in the middle.
Of a lesser importance for the time being, but still one that demands attention is the question of overall ideology. For perhaps the first time in history, Labour lacks the philosophical divisions that usually translate to a party split once in opposition. The notion that Miliband is under siege by neo-Blairites is a popular one, but is not a reality. The Leader of the Opposition is a far more original thinker than many are prepared to give him credit for and few other politicians have a program aimed at shifting the equilibrium of British politics over a twenty-five year period. Yet as any undergraduate will be aware, it is hard to translate a flow-chart of ideas into a successful thesis. It is no fault of the average voter than they don’t really know what the Labour Party stands for. Tony Blair could spin a tale to take the electorate with him, Ed needs to learn how to.
However, the kaleidoscope of ideas that have arisen from the party elite and grassroots must be embraced, not curtailed. Over the previous twelve months, the party has seen the rise of Maurice Glasman’s “Blue Labour”, aimed at refounding the party’s anti-statist origins, “the Purple Book”, an updating of the Blairite views of the stakeholder society, and “In the Black Labour”, regaining the party reputation for fiscal management and the promotion of industrial innovation.
This is a positive. Whilst any mesh of ideas can be difficult to diffuse to start with, it will not be until the long-awaited policy review is published next month before the electorate can make a value judgement on where Miliband is taking the Labour Party. 2011 was a time for discussion, 2012 will be time for decision.
The most infuriating thing about the Leader of the Opposition is his lack of consistency. He may never give oratories like Tony Blair or evangelise like Mrs Thatcher, but his response to the phone hacking scandal was done in a way that would have been beyond the abilities of Neil Kinnock or Iain Duncan Smith.
Miliband can be decisive; his scrapping of the archaic Shadow Cabinet elections has left him with the ability to choose a far stronger team than that afforded by his predecessors and whilst derided at the time, many of the themes behind Miliband’s Conference rally against “Crony Capitalism” have quietly been adopted by the government. Scotland and poor rhetoric remain the greatest failings for 2011, but no political spectator should write off the Leader of the Opposition quite yet.
Tuesday, January 10th, 2012
LSESU Labourmember Benjamin Butterworth tells us why London needs a ‘Fare Deal’ and why we should vote for Ken Livingstone for Mayor of London in May
There are few places more at the heart of the world stage than London in 2012. East London shall soon be a circus of athleticism, welcoming the world’s most exceptional sports persons to show their wears. Just up the road the planet’s most famous Briton will be marking her sixtieth year on the throne, whilst her family tour the 54 Commonwealth nations. And less publicised, but of equal exceptionalism, the Charles Dickens’ museum shall re-open for his 200th birthday.
The etchings of the coming year will illustrate for a generation why London remains the most visited city on Earth. But for those who live in the capital, times aren’t as rose-tinted. Every city has its drawbacks and struggles, but for London these have come to be more acute in the past three years. The numbers of police on our streets has fallen by almost 2,000 since 2009 – all in a time of recession. The cost of rent has spiralled into oblivion as the capital’s housing shortage grows chronic. And, hurting most of all, transport fares have risen beyond PPI year-on-year – and now up another 8% this month.
43 months into Boris Johnson’s mayoral reign, and a global survey found London to now have the highest public transport charges of any city. More expensive than New York, Rome, even Tokyo – cities notorious for their very high living costs. The statistics, uncovered by the House of Commons library, reveal that a Londoner working for the minimum wage now shells out 27% of their income just getting to and from work.
In his first year of office, Boris increased the cost of a Tube journey by up as much as 10%. The cost of boarding a bus rose by almost 13% in his second. And my own student ‘discounted’ Oyster will cost the wince-worthy sum of £275.40 for Lent term alone. It can be easy to accept these as the cost of living in the big smoke. But when comparisons of other global cities (and other cities in our own green lands) find them to be extortionate, then we know there’s a serious neglect of responsibility going on at the top.
In fact, Transport for London has declared an operating surplus of £728,000,000. So why put the fares up? The truth is it’s about choices, and nowhere is this more true than in London’s mayoralty. At every opportunity since taking power, Johnson has made the choice to hit a tax on commuters – above inflation, every time. But Ken Livingstone, Labour’s candidate for mayor, argues there’s an alternative.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies revised its economic predictions during 2011 to now forecast the biggest squeeze on household incomes for Britons in modern times. Years of stagnant pay and an unstable market are on the cards, meaning we need those in power doing all they can to help lift the burden. That’s why Ken, born and raised in a low income London household himself, says it’s time we had a mayor who stepped up and helped commuters. BoJo’s tax on commuting is bad for inflation, bad for business, and no step to getting London working.
Ken’s ‘Fare Deal’ pledges to cut away the Tube tax of the Conservative administration, pulling fares down by 7% from this October. Subsequent to that, Ken has pledged to freeze fares in-line with inflation. And this is a pledge made on his own track record: whilst mayor of London from 2000-2008, the cost of a single bus fare rose just twice, whilst TfL’s income increased by £153m from the increased usage.
Summer 2012 is destined to be a year full of greatness for this city city. But before then we have a choice about the sort of London we want to live in. On May 3rd all citizens in the UK, EU or a Commonwealth nation that live in London can vote for who becomes mayor. The choice is yours: a mayor who has ranked up the highest transport fees in the world for Londoners, or a mayor with the muscle and ambition to make this city more competitive, more responsible, and fairer for us all. I’m backing Ken May 3rd.
Monday, November 28th, 2011
Recently, students at LSE have rightly received bad press over shameful examples of sexism and misogyny. It is appalling that some students at LSE would appear to think that sexism, sexual violence and misogyny are acceptable in student media and elections.
Jason Wong, currently campaigning to be elected as Bankside treasurer has run a campaign filled with sexism and misogyny. It is completely unacceptable for him to campaign on a platform that objectifies women, makes women feel victimised within their own hall of residence, or perpetuates the gender stereotypes that the feminist movement has worked so hard to break down over the past decades.
Wong’s campaign is completely out of place in modern society and LSESU Labour strongly condemns it. We will not tolerate sexism and misogyny on our campus and demand that Jason stands down in the Bankside treasurer election and issues a full length apology to the student body in The Beaver next week.
Tuesday, October 4th, 2011
The recent, and so far successful, intervention in Libya has reinvigorated a debate that seemed forever dormant under the shadow of Iraq. The debate about the merits of ‘Liberal Interventionism has for too long been jettisoned in favour of turning a blind eye to atrocities in the name of self-determination. It has long been portrayed as merely a good intentioned excuse for regime change, from potentially hostile governments to ones more likely to stay in the pocket of the west. This definition, if allowed to continue, risks Liberal Interventionism being permanently consigned to the Neo-Conservative creed. The current events have presented us with an opportunity to redefine it as a doctrine with which great things can be achieved for deserving peoples, and lay to rest the myth of Liberal Interventionism as merely a tool of control for powerful elites.
Liberal Interventionism has two tenets upon which it can, and should, be justified. The first is one of morality. It must finally be accepted that there are things in this world which are universally good regardless of culture. Many people dispute this but there are in fact a basic set of principles which should be promoted. They include basic liberties such as freedom of speech, freedom from arbitrary arrest and, perhaps most controversially, political freedom. Political freedom characterised by universal suffrage and the basic ability to have a degree of control over the very people who rule you. There appears no better evidence for the universality of these than the recent uprisings in pursuit of them. This appears to lead, rather harmlessly, to an endorsement of democracy. This is the foundation for what David Miliband termed the ‘democratic imperative.’ A commitment to nurture democracy and the essential basic liberties it is unarguably founded upon.
The second tenet is far less important than the first and must only be considered as a mere contributory factor for interventionism, never as the primary or deciding factor. This second factor is also unavoidable in our increasingly globalised world. Globalisation has, as stated by Tony Blair in his ‘Chicago speech’, led to an interdependency between nations; this has in turn created an international community where events on one side of the globe have profound consequences for those on the other. In this sense not only is it morally wrong to turn a blind eye to evil and authoritarian regimes, it is against the interests of the world as a whole.
This second justification however, must always have the caveat of being subject to the first. Never can we act on the sole basis of self-interest. This is where interventionism can quickly mutate into the hypocritical and unjust doctrine many would have it characterised as.
There seem to be two main arguments against Liberal Interventionism. The first appears to be the anti-imperialist, anti-west critique which states that we should not intervene in affairs that are not our own, and that we do so for our own interests and not those of the individuals within the country. If we address this critique with regards to Libya we see that the choice was not between us intervening and forever casting a western, imperialist shadow over their uprising or leaving them alone to peacefully revolt and overthrow a brutal dictatorship. It was instead a choice between preventing a massacre and helping a revolution, or allowing the abhorrent murderous actions of Gaddafi to go unchallenged and his grip on power to tighten. This was the real choice and nobody should be allowed to go unchallenged if they claim otherwise.
The second argument seems to revolve around questioning why we are not intervening in each and every country where there are human rights abuses and ruthless dictators. We should not be put off intervening in one country just because we cannot intervene everywhere. With Libya there was an alignment of factors that made intervention possible. Firstly, there was a UN mandate, resolution 1973, from the security council which provided a legal basis. Secondly, public and political opinion was largely sympathetic to the cause. Thirdly, there was support from the Arab league meaning the actions of NATO had the backing of the other countries within the region.
When people attempt to employ these criticisms they seem to forget that non-intervention is also a choice and one which can have profound moral consequences. Therefore, the onus should surely be on critics of the NATO action in Libya to explain why they would have allowed a massacre when there was a clear opportunity to avoid it, not on the people who chose to prevent it. For these reasons many people are guilty of a great hypocrisy with regards to Liberal Interventionism.
Winning the debate on Liberal Interventionism will never be easy; it will always be the harder choice to take a stand against evil. However, worse than failing to act if possible is failing to act under the pretence of morality and the very values you are ignoring but preach devotion to. What could be more devoid of principle and morality than ignoring the opportunity to give people the basic freedoms we enjoy and that will enable them to flourish as human beings? Basic human rights and the entrenchment of democracy should be integral to any foreign policy and this is why when examined and followed to its true end, Liberal Interventionism is a doctrine that should be embraced. The challenge that faced the West last March was a grave one. It had to ensure an outcome where the people of Libya would prevail, where the people of Libya no longer lived in fear and where, most importantly, the people of Libya had a true right to self-determination. It would appear that six months on the actions of the West have finally matched its rhetoric. We have finally shown we truly treasure the values we have for too long merely professed to promote.
