Ricardian magazine final internet

UNITED
KINGDOM
Monarchy
Scottish Independence
Free-Market
European Union
Republic
Scottish devolution
Nationalisation
European exit
The
Future
of Britain
The
Future
of Britain
Chief editors
Felix Clarke
Oliver Northover Smith
Graphical editor
Max Beech
Section editors
Samuel Lewis - Politics
Calvin Ngwena - Politics
Jonathan French - Economics
Lewis Bizaoui - Finance & Business
James Wheeler - Society
Chris Ranson - Media & Sport
Cover illustration
Jason Roy
Written and produced by students of
The Royal Grammar School, Guildford
Cover illustration by Jason Roy

INTRODUCTION
Our world is characterised by prosperity. Stagnant
yet prosperous in the West, entrepreneurial yet poor
in the East. One is already prosperous, and one will
soon be.
Despite all this, we must not forget that growth is a
new phenomenon. Global emergence from subsistence
agriculture is a story of the last two hundred years.
One of the driving forces behind this emergence was the
beginnings of the study of a new subject – Economics. Men
now began to study the most efficient way to allocate the
resources our societies were blessed with. Adam Smith’s
1776 book, The Wealth of Nations is seen as the very
beginning of this process, but people are oft to forget
David Ricardo, the second great classical economist, whose
contributions are arguably superior to those of Smith.
Ricardo’s theories on trade and pricing have founded the
modern world of commerce and to him we are all in debt.
This journal is called The Ricardian because we believe
that knowledge about the processes that allowed us to be
prosperous is essential for us all if we are to perpetuate our
prosperity in the face of serious challenges.
Over the next few years, Britain faces enormous
challenges which she will have to confront. As senior
editors of this publication, we have brought together
some bright young minds to theorise about our
nation’s future as well as judge her past. Some
will argue that the free markets promoted by
the classical economists fail to achieve all of
society’s goals. Others will try to persuade
us that we make better decisions left to
our own devices. The important thing
is that we gather knowledge to make
informed citizens of ourselves so we
can tackle the challenges ahead.
Felix Clarke and
CONTENTS
62
17
Politics
05 The Best Government Ever?
06 Is it time to abandon the EU?
06 In Support of a Spoilt Ballot
07 The Problem With UKIP
09 2015 Election: Party Leader Profiles
10 Britain: New direction or same old?
12 French Exodus: President Hollande
12 Where do we go from here?
14 The End of Two-Party Politics?
15 American Political System: the problem
16 A Distinctly Scottish Choice
17 Scottish Referendum: international
18 Interview: Chris Grayling MP
Economics
22 We live in a meritocracy, right? Wrong!
22 Mark Carney: One year on
24 The Case for Fat Taxes
24 Austerity? What Austerity?
25 Cost of Living Crisis
26 The Sinfulness of ‘Sin Taxes’
27 Economic recovery: driven by South?
28 End help-to-buy and start building
29 Will we regret quantitative easing?
History
32 Did Friedrich Engels alter Marxism?
32 The West: to blame for Middle East?
34 Pillars of Civilization, Gods to greed
35 WW2 POW Camp Economy
35 American economic aggression
36 The Trolley Cart Dilemma
38 World War One’s Literary Legacy
40 Spanish Empire & New World Silver
Finance & Business
15 Is Silver a Safe Haven for Investors?
19 Pfizer and AstraZeneca
15 Hit the road, Frack
19 Aston Martin: an independent future?
Society
47 Are we too reliant on the Internet?
47 A Changing Music Industry
49 King George?
51 Urban re-development: US vs. UK
52 Should Politicians ‘Do God’?
23
53 The Visible 2012 Legacy
55 Is the UK a Christian country?
56 Can pro gaming be a real career?
57 Cannabis debate: the problem
Media & Sport
59 The role of finance in county cricket
60 Dark days for conventional TV?
60 Why would you host the World Cup?
61 The Changing Fortunes of Man U
62 Football: more than just a sport?
3
18

POLITICS
4
What is politics? To some it brings about an emotion of apathy. Others become filled with rage and anger
at the mention of politics. They relate it with upper class elitists who do not concern themselves with the
issues of ordinary people but see it as a way to further their own selfish aims.
Admittedly there is a degree of truth to this, but I feel that politics is the most important element of society. It is a
discipline in either study or real life application which provides a forum for people to express their own opinions,
challenge and debate each other on key issues which are of significant personal importance. Politics also allows
for citizens to place other subjects of academia into real world application. Think what impact ideologies such as
conservatism would have made if there was not a system which allowed these ideas to be presented and implemented
in a practical manner. As Plato so famously put it, ‘One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that
you end up being governed by your inferiors’.
With the General Election here in the UK less than a year away, Britain’s two major political parties must now
fight hard if they are to overturn the rise of UKIP that was highlighted by the European elections earlier this year.
Before that there is the Scottish Referendum. The result of this will not only be of great importance in the UK, but
throughout Europe and the rest of the world as various states try to claim independence themselves. So much now
rests on the General election and the Scottish Referendum that both can at least be expected to have large turnouts.
Samuel Lewis & Calvin Ngwena, Section Editors
The best
Government
ever?
Rupert Fitzsimmons
Okay, so, the Coalition Government of
the past four years has not been the best
government that Britain has ever had:
one might even say that it has been quite
mediocre, although mediocrity might
just have been what we needed back in
May 2010, in the middle of the economic
crisis. The Coalition Government has
been incredibly good for both the
economy and the democracy of the UK.
Additionally, it has resulted in what
might be identified as a significant
political victory for the Tories, as the
Lib Dems have been widely considered
to be the governmental scapegoat. This
relatively uneventful coalition has been
an incredible success as a direct product
of its uneventfulness - it has reinforced
significant benefactions of politics to
the state.
The ‘dynamic duo’, as one might
sarcastically describe the publicly
chummy prime minister and his deputy,
have faced much criticism over their
adventurously passive government
but this was always going to be the
case. Naturally, coalitions prevent the
exploration of election manifestos
during their period of governance
due to not necessarily having a truly
legitimate mandate. Consequently,
many voters deem their votes to have
been wasted and their once inspiring
politicians to be traitors. This mindset
is easily fallen into by the traditionally
uncompromisingly partisan electorate
of the UK and, to the great joy of UKIP,
presents fertile ground for rigorous
political conversion. For the following
reasons, however, one should avoid this
viewpoint.
While it may seem disappointing that
the politicians have, yet again, seemingly
failed to deliver, I strongly believe that
the hung parliament of 2010 was the
best thing that could have happened
to our country. We were experiencing a
period of horrific economic downturn
following the recession of 2009 and
none of the major parties, with the
possible exception of the Conservative
Party with the fiscal faculties of George
Osborne, would have really known what
to do. Labour would almost certainly
have failed due to its unwillingness to
make cuts and had, so goes the Tory
line, already managed to wreck the
economy. The Lib Dems were proposing
rabble-rousing reductions in tax which
certainly would not have remotely
helped with the deficit. The Liberal-
Tory coalition, however, resulted in,
due to the necessity for stability, a very
satisfying compromise of compassionate
quasi-socialist social policies from the
Lib Dems with the Thatcherite legacy
of neo-liberal fiscal policies from the
Tories - a match made in heaven for
a failing country. Furthermore, as an
obvious result of coalition, the overall
philosophical outlook naturally drifted
towards a centrist position. Fortunately,
in contemporary politics, centrist views
appeal widely and, thanks to Thatcher’s
undeniable success, have adopted
many economically sound principles.
If we had not had this stable centrist
government then it is unlikely we
would be experiencing yearly economic
growth rates of 2-3%, a significant
improvement meriting a round of
applause for Mr. Osborne. The coalition’s
stable Thatcherite economic policies,
therefore, saved the UK’s economy.
A further reason for the Government’s
brilliant mediocrity is its innate
conservatism (in the philosophical
sense). Due to its minor legitimacy
crisis, the coalition has been forced
to make only small changes in areas
beyond economic necessity, no radical
changes with unforeseen outcomes
have been enacted. This means that,
considering Brown’s pathetic period as
prime minister, we are still living in a
country that is fundamentally Blairite
in its infrastructure - an infrastructure
which, considering the democratic
reforms of rights, the House of Lords,
the Judiciary and general transparency,
is rather good.
If anything, not with the intention of
continuing these democratic reforms,
but with the indirect result of it, the
coalition government has improved
the country even more so through the
introduction of fixed term parliaments.
This five year period, outlined by the
government in order to set itself a target,
is a great addition to the constitution
which has helped modernise the UK.
Purely by accident, the coalition
government has improved democracy in
the UK.
The coalition, despite not being
particularly appealing, exciting or
influential has been - and continues to
be - a stable and suitable answer to the
issues that have faced, and still face,
the UK. I am sure that no voter is truly
yearning for a continuation of this safe
and mediocre period of politics, but the
coalition really has been the saviour of
Britain. ƒ
5
“Thatcherite
economic
policies... saved
the UK economy”
David Cameron and Nick Clegg - the
‘dynamic duo’

POLITICS
Is it time to
abandon the
EU?
Tim Foster
The question of whether
the UK should remain part
of the EU has, for better
or worse, dominated UK
politics.
British citizens have increasingly begun
to question whether being members of
the EU is in the national interest, and if
not, then the second question concerning
leaving the EU naturally follows. In
order to see how central this debate has
become, one need not look further than
the UK’s political party system, which
has changed to such an extent that, in
the words of many journalists, ‘three has
become four’. The Labour, Conservative
and Liberal Democrat parties are
now seen to have a fourth major rival:
UKIP. This party seeks to represent the
Eurosceptic feelings that many people in
the UK now have, as demonstrated by
the recent European elections, in which
only UKIP can claim to be the winner.
UKIP, alongside many other Eurosceptic
organisations, have advanced various
arguments in favour of abandoning the
EU. It is my opinion, however, that these
arguments are fundamentally flawed.
Whilst the EU clearly has its problems
and needs reforming, the UK needs to be
part of this process, and
react by expelling most if not all British
citizens back to the UK, causing a
massive influx of people coming into our
country (exactly what the Eurosceptic
wants!).
On top of this, immigration horror
stories are almost entirely mythological
in nature. For instance, it is a lie
that immigrants are mostly living off
benefits: European immigrants are
half as likely as natives to receive state
benefits or tax credits, according to a
study by academics at UCL.
Other fantasies about EU immigrants
are similarly rebuked by facts: most
are young and skilled. They come here
mainly to work. Their so-called ‘non-
activity’ rate, which covers pensioners,
students and stay-at-home parents
as well as the unemployed, is thirty
percent. The rate for the UK population
as a whole is forty-three percent.
Meanwhile, thirty-two percent of
recent arrivals have university degrees
compared with twenty-one percent of
the native population. The average age
of the European immigrant population
in Britain was thirty-four in 2011,
compared with forty-one for the native
population. We do not pay much for
the immigrants’ education since most
arrive already educated. As most EU
immigrants are of working age, we do
not pay much for their pensions or
healthcare either. Many return home
after a few years. Finally, consider the
cultural impact: immigrants import
different foods, languages beliefs, ideas,
etc., all of which are worth celebrating.
The more ingredients a stew gets, the
better it tastes. Immigration is and
has always been a powerful tool for the
enrichment of mankind.
Ultimately, EU immigrants are largely a
force for good, not evil, and so leaving
the EU because of immigration would be
a massive mistake.
In fact, leaving the EU at all would be
a massive mistake. No matter how you
look at it, be it economically, culturally
or internationally, all sides stand to
lose if the UK abandons the EU. The
arguments put forward by Eurosceptics
are at best mistaken and at worst
purely emotional and without rational
grounding. This is not to say that the EU
does not have problems; it does indeed
have huge ones. The solution, however,
is not for the UK to leave a sinking ship,
but to help navigate it towards reform,
and in doing so, help to steer Europe
towards prosperity. ƒ
In support of a
spoilt ballot
Will Cowie
2015 dawns fast upon us.
For the majority of the team here at the
Ricardian, it is a landmark date – not
just a general election, but the general
election – the first one; the first time
that we have been considered old or
wise enough to vote by the leaders of our
country. Finally we have a voice and are
able to enter into that shared right of
the great civilisations of human history
– the right to vote. Like the Athenians
and Romans before us we have a chance
to live “the good life” of politics and to
let our voices be heard.
So it may surprise you that, come
Polling Day, with your list of party
candidates before you, I suggest that
we spoil our ballots. This may seem
stupid, a waste of a useful vote, it may
seem like a refusal to accept society as
it is and instead seek a perfect political
system. Spoiling the ballot may seem
the equivalent to entering that weighty
and historical theatre (the polling box)
and resoundingly, defiantly, raising two
fingers.
I would argue that this is not the case.
It’s not just that as young people we
are utterly unrepresented by political
parties today – and we certainly are as
6
parties seek out the vote of an ageing
population, scared to significantly
raise the retirement age but perfectly
happy to hand out £27,000 of crippling
debt upon all young people who seek
higher education. It’s not just the
centralisation of political power – as
the safe seat becomes more and more
common in various regions, the leaders
of are country are determined by a
shrinking number of swing seats, to
the extent that, living in Surrey, the
votes of anyone who does not support
the Conservatives are wasted. It’s not
just the corrupt, expense-claiming
politicians who do not care for the
concerns of their local constituents but
instead try to climb the ranks of power
as suits them. It’s not just the erosion
of local politics – with power taken
increasingly away from local authorities
into the hands of central government
our say about our local area is removed.
It’s not just the increasing celebrity
culture of political leaders – where the
vote of the country is based upon not the
policies represented by political parties,
but whether Nigel Farage likes to have a
fag and a pint, or what dress Samantha
Cameron was wearing at the latest social
function. And it’s not just the increasing
impotency of our government – held to
ransom by multi-national corporations.
Yes, it’s all that. But most important
is the real erosion of the true sense
of democracy – the true sense of the
Athenian “good life”. We are fast losing
all sense of debate in our political
system and this is very worrying. We
see on the one hand apathy (as voter
turnouts fast shrink) and on the other,
blind willingness to follow the ideas of
a political party – we accept or reject
the ideas of the government in power
based not on the merit of those ideas
but instead upon whether the party we
like suggested them. Spoiling the ballot
sends a clear message – we want to be
involved in this democratic system but
first there needs to be change. For at the
moment, change does not appear to be
on the horizon. Maybe, this way, we can
alter that. ƒ
The problem
with UKIP
Eddie Mitchell
If you have not noticed
the rapid rise of UKIP,
you must have been living
under a rock.
To many people, this rise to prominence
came as something of a surprise.
Certainly none of the main, established,
parties seems to have anticipated it.
Remember that this was the party that
the Prime Minister once described
as “a Bunch of Fruitcakes, Loonies
and Closet Racists”. Now the party so
rudely dismissed by David Cameron
has stormed to victory in the recent
European Elections. So how and why has
the rise of UKIP been so spectacular?
To answer this question I believe you
have to take account of the economic
conditions over the last few years and
the effect of austerity measures. Many
people in the UK are feeling the effects
and are disillusioned and angry. Since
the beginning of the financial crisis
in 2008, thousands of people have
lost their jobs, or have suffered pay
freezes or reductions. At one point, in
2011, nearly 2.7 million people - some
8% of the UK’s working population -
were unemployed. The cycle of ‘Boom
and Bust’, which Gordon Brown so
triumphantly announced had ended in
2008, was clearly still in rude health.
Of course, the recession was not limited
to the UK. It hit most countries and the
cause cannot reasonably be attributed
to the UK politicians. Whatever Gordon
Brown said in 2008, there was probably
little he could have done to prevent the
UKs slide into recession.
Unfortunately, it seems to be human
nature to look for a scapegoat. Most
people want someone or something
tangible to blame for why they aren’t
able to adequately to feed their families.
You don’t have to look too far back in
history to see this effect in action - most
evidently in Germany between the
World wars, when the cruel Versailles
powers and weak Weimar leaders were
deemed responsible for all Germany’s
ills.
With the assistance of some of the
tabloid Press, UKIP targets a convenient
scapegoat - immigrants - specifically
those from other parts of Europe.
Immigrants taking jobs that UKIP
suggest should be given to ‘British
citizens’ is something tangible and
7

POLITICS
easily understood. Such rhetoric feeds
the prejudices of the desperate and
focuses their anger.
Immigration damaging the economy is
one of those convenient lies which seem
almost universally to be accepted, yet
this evidently isn’t true. Far from being
damaging to the economy, immigration
is a solution to many problems that
would face this country if it were
further curtailed. On balance, recent
immigrants make a substantial net
contribution to the wealth of the UK and
many take jobs that would be hard to
fill otherwise. These are the conclusions
reached by researchers at UCL in 2013.
UKIP’s main thrust is, of course, to
oppose the UK’s membership of the
EU. The European Union and its
Members are blamed for holding back
the UK’s prospects and thus causing
hardship. In fact, it’s probably true to
say that the majority of the electorate
(myself included) simply does not
have enough information to make any
rational decision on the state of Britain
and the effect of its membership of the
EU. UKIP is cashing in on that lack of
understanding.
Another aspect of UKIP’s popularity
which cannot be ignored stems from the
personality of its leader Nigel Farage,
who is for all intents and purposes, the
face of the party. Farage is a man with
whom people feel they can identify
– a rare trait at a time when trust in
politicians is at an all-time low. Personal
charisma is not in itself a bad thing, but
problems can arise when the electorate
trust policies simply because they like
the character of the man delivering
them.
UKIP now has to be seen as a significant
player in the forthcoming general
election next year, but it is hard to see
that they are going to be around for
the long run. Their party is so thin on
policy (aside from the desire for the UK
to be ‘independent’ of the EU) and so
dependent on one man - its leader - that
in my opinion, it will soon disappear and
with it the bitter and divisive policies it
espouses.
________________________________
BRITAIN UNDER NIGEL FARAGE
- Immigration would become points-
based. Nigel Farage’s favourite country,
Australia, would be the model.
- Question Time and the PMQ’s would
be instantly elevated to absolute hilarity
due to the prescence of such characters
as Godfrey Bloom.
- The government would be run like the
city - caffiene and cocaine in, women
and poor people out.
8
“Immigration is a
solution to many
problems that we
shall be facing”
Nigel Farage is always keen to show off his alternative approach to politics.
2015 Election:
party leader
profiles
Calvin Ngwena
DAVID CAMERON
The Prime Minister. The ‘big-cheese’.
Whatever adjective you want to use
there is no denying that Mr Cameron
has dominated the political arena for the
past few years. From his often criticised
austerity measures to his controversial
attempt to intervene in Syria, he has
been at the centre of political agenda.
Some would identify a need to address
the concerning rise of UKIP who are
seen to be drawing away traditional
voters from the Tory Party. Maybe this
is why Cameron recently gave a speech
about upholding British values and
possibly the reason behind Education
Secretary Michael Gove’s reform of our
educational system to teach our youth
more about the work of British men and
women. By prioritising these polices, it
may be seen as a way of keeping those
voters who feel that national values are
being lost at the expense of a tolerance
of a wide range of cultures. Only time
will tell whether this potential method
will continue and even reward the party
and Mr Cameron with a majority win in
the next general election.
NICK CLEGG
It seems as if nothing can go right for
the leader of the Third Party. Four
years ago people were backing the Lib
Dems, hoping for an alternative to the
manifestos of the two main parties. The
leader of the party, however, is perceived
to have no integrity as he backtracked
on his objection to a rise in tuition fees,
a decision which alienated the majority
of Lib Dems supporters. That is not to
say Nick Clegg has not tried to improve
our political system. A valiant attempt
to reform the House of Lords by making
peers elected and more accountable
was rejected by Tories - a defeat which
caused the Lib Dem leader even more
heartache. Nevertheless, the true low
points came at both the EU debates with
Farage and the lacklustre, uninspiring
performance in the European election
which saw party support fall to record
levels. This accumulatied in the botched
attempt by Lord Oakeshott to dethrone
Clegg as the party leader, making for an
uneasy period. One must wait to see if
better prospects are on the horizon for
the Mr Clegg.
ED MILIBAND
Some could say it has been a rather
passive performance from Mr Miliband
since2010.WiththecurrentToryparty’s
‘Long term economic plan’ coming to
fruition with annual GDP growth for
2014 being forecast at 2.9%, hard times
lie ahead for the Labour Leader who
must convince voters that there is an
alternative option. But is there really?
Reportedly the Shadow Chancellor
Ed Balls even realises that the path of
austerity is a necessary policy in order
to keep the economy on track, making it
even harder for the party to distinguish
itself from the supposed dark (blue)
side. So what can Mr Miliband do now?
In the fall of 2013 it appeared that the
‘Cost of Living Crisis’ was going to be
the main driver of their new manifesto.
It embodied key principles of placing
priority with the vulnerable and forcing
the elite rich to pay back their fair share
to society. Nevertheless reports of a ‘cost
of living crisis’ have been diminishing
as real wage growth has overtaken CPI
Inflation for the first time since 2008.
The Labour Leader needs to find
another manifesto pledge to cling onto
before it’s too late.
NIGEL FARAGE
The ‘political earthquake’ predicted
by Mr Farage may actually be coming
to fruition. After an impressive display
against Nick Clegg on the debate on
EU membership and a historic win in
the recent European election, it sparks
the possible demise of the two- party
dominance which the Conservative
and Labour Party have held for over
100 years. So what’s next for the new
star of UK politics? Reports claim that
he is planning to secure up to a dozen
seats in the next general election, a
plan which will unfortunately gain the
party no significant power due to the
harsh reality of the First Past the Post
electoral system but will aim to push the
party in the right direction. Although
there have been damaging events which
have threatened to de-rail Mr Farage’s
political ambition including his recent
remarks concerning Romanians, no one
can deny the impact he has made in the
recent months on both voter opinion and
rival party leaders. If nothing else, he’s a
master at pandering to the populist anti-
politics vote. This just might be a string
to his bow. ƒ
9
From left: Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg, David Cameron.

POLITICS
A new direction
for Britain or
the same old?
Rupert Fitzsimmons
May 7th 2015 is the date
etched into the minds of
politicians everywhere,
and ‘change’ is the word on
their lips.
The General Election of 2015 shall
undoubtedly be an extremely interesting
event in contemporary politics and, as
does virtually every general election,
it shall result in change. However, what
type of change and to what extent the
changes are enacted are currently
known only through speculation. One
thing can be said, however: it is unlikely
that the election itself shall bring any
form of drastic new direction. The
current social undercurrents explored
in less conformist media outlets and the
incredible success of UKIP in the recent
European Elections could point towards
some serious concerns over immigration
and cultural identity which could result
in a new direction in the general outlook
of the nation depending on how the new
government intends to deal with issues
surrounding immigration and cultural
divides. Each party, both internally
and externally, finds it difficult to
come to a definitive set of policies over
these potentially controversial, or even
dangerous, topics.
Unfortunately, this means that the
precise lines that each party shall take
in their manifestos are currently still
very hard to meaningfully specify, but
in the potential scenarios outlined
below, an informed proposal for policies
of this nature shall be presented along
with its hypothetical outcome.
Labour victory
Miliband’s band of merry men
(and women and transgendered and
unspecified gendered individuals - as
every good Labour politician eagerly
points out) are currently leading
the polls (June 2014, with a score
of approximately 35%). This is not
an overwhelming majority, but it is
significant enough to suggest that Red
Ed is in with a chance of moving house.
One major problem, however, is that Mr
Miliband has yet to produce a coherent
outline of his philosophy and his policy
proposals. The only thing that we really
know the Labour Party would do if they
succeed in the General Election is swap
sides in the House of Commons; that
said, it is possible to predict some vague
outline of the future manifesto.
Policy-wise, it is unlikely that there will
be a change. Firstly, Jon Cruddas (head
of policy review for the Party) has said
that ‘radical welfare reforms’ are on the
agenda for the Party - unfortunately
Cruddas clearly fails to comprehend
what the word ‘radical’ means. He
states that the Party will increase the
level of scrutinising carried out when
determining the payment of benefits so
that there will be an even greater focus
on the existing salaries of applicants
when calculating the payouts - hardly
a revolutionary approach to welfare.
Second, based on the European Election
pamphlets delivered across the country
by the Party, it would appear that they
will have big focus on the family. This
will mean free childcare and reduced
living costs - living costs being the Party’s
favorite point-scoring attack on the
Coalition Government. On the matter of
Europe and immigration in general, the
Labour opposition are highly critical
of the Conservative Party’s approaches.
Despite this, there are great divides
within the Labour Party - there is
no overall set of policies. Hypocrisy
is the Labour Party’s most defining
characteristic. One might speculate,
however, that the Party will ere on the
side of caution and state that they will
(without providing any specifics in the
classic politicians’ vernacular) ‘crack
down’ on illegal immigration - with
no reference to legal immigration in
order to avoid conflict. Labour will also
promise to prevent further devolution to
Brussels.
Analysing this loose and hypothetical
manifesto, a Labour Government
following 2015 would be unlikely to
change the direction of Britain in any
significant manner - realistically it is
unlikelythatmuchwouldchangefromthe
current approach taken by the Coalition
Government. That said, looking at the
unauthoritative nature of the socialist
ideology that the Labour Party claims
to follow, it would potentially result
in a dangerous growth of anti-Islamic
beliefs amongst the electorate fueled
by the current terrorist threats being
raised by the aggressive situation of the
Middle East and by the way in which
Islamic communities in the UK often
fail to embrace British culture. With the
addition of individual unrepresentative
cases of Muslim annexation, such
as the Islamic group of schools in
Birmingham, being discussed by the
right-wing tabloids it is possible that
the public opinion of those subscribing
to the religion could - as it has across
Europe, especially in France, Greece
and Hungary - become mistrusting and
hostile. This is an issue that could really
plague a Labour government; it would
not be a good change in direction.
Conservative Victory
As is often the way with being in
government, making the tough decisions
day in day out, the Tories are not doing
too well in the polls. Realistically, unless
both UKIP and Labour make serious
mistakes and Clegg (a good old Tory
boy) remains the leader of the Liberal
Democrats it is unlikely - and it pains
me to write this - that the Conservative
Party shall win the election - however,
stranger things have happened in
politics so there is still hope.
10 11
Unfortunately, due to the inadequacies
of some voters, the Conservative Party
(the oldest and therefore best party in
British politics) have been forced, since
Thatcher’s reign, to bring its policies
towards a more central position - a
position that one might argue is being
represented, aside from the bad policies
such as on higher education costs, by the
current government. As a result of this,
if the Tories win the 2015 election then
there will most likely be absolutely no
directional change for Britain. We shall
remain a country with a high rate of
economic recovery and world-renowned
brilliance. If anything, the only change
of direction that could be a result of
Conservative victory would be found
in the outcome of the 2017 referendum
on the EU - an event too distant to
meaningfully speculate on.
Regarding the possibility of Britain
becoming a nation of hostility - a
potential result of a Labour victory
– we need not worry if the Tories win
in 2015. The conservative ideology was
born out of a dislike of the anarchic
developments of the French Revolution
and the Party was founded, in part, by
Sir Robert Peel - founder of the Police.
It has a strong tradition of maintaining
law and order and a good track record
achievement, as demonstrable through
the 15% drop in crime rates since
May 2010. Racists will, therefore, be
dealt with. Further, the Tories are on
the ball over immigration and Europe.
Ultimately, a Conservative victory
would be the best thing for Britain, it
would not cause an immediate change
in direction, but the country’s direction
would remain correct.
Liberal Democrat and
Labour Coalition
It is amazing what differences can be put
aside in the harsh light of post-election
morning. With Labour currently on
track for failing to achieve a majority
it is possible that they shall need a
boost to legitimise their government.
The Lib Dems could, yet again, become
kingmakers. This could be the most
dangerous direction shift for Britain,
not only would we see the generally
airy policies of Labour but also the
left-wing side of the Liberal Democrats
come out. Because of this, however, less
has to be written on it as the results
would broadly be the same as the
Labour victory. Firstly, and fortunately,
as discussed above, due to the general
centralisation of contemporary politics,
again the policies would be unlikely to
change the direction of Britain much.
Speculation as to what nuanced policies
might result from such an arrangement
really is futile - coalitions are the home
of bargaining and bartering, mixing
and matching. All that can be said is
that when red is mixed with yellow
one gets orange. Regarding the social
consequences of the outcome, they
would again be potentially dangerous;
the only addition might be that nuclear
disarmament will be on the cards thanks
to the Lib Dems - again, a bad idea that
would certainly result in great protest.
So, a new direction? Possibly. It seems
that we shall either witness the total
collapse of British society (a significant
change in direction) or the continuity of
the current success of the Government
which would not being a new direction.
But it would be by far the best option. ƒ
UKIP’s advertising startegies often cause controversy - and comedy.

POLITICS
The French
Exodus: A
retrospective
on President
Hollande
Confidently denouncing
the claims of the French
Ambassador that his nation
was in better shape than
Britain, Boris Johnson,
Mayor of London, exclaimed
- “Français, Françaises, vous
êtes bienvenus à Londres.
Vouz avez voté avec vos
pieds.”
The French, voting with their feet,
had abandoned France in favour of
the British capital in their thousands.
According to Mr Johnson, such an
exodus was a vindication of his party’s
pro-business agenda, thus condemning
Francois Hollande’s Socialist Party.
The first few months of 2014 have indeed
brought little good news to France. The
IMF have warned the French that the
size of their public sector was a danger
to growth. The far-right Front National
came in first place during France’s Euro
election, a sign of growing discontent
with the mainstream UMP and Parti
Socialiste. France’s Prime Minister Jean-
Marc Ayrault was congedié in favour of
the more popular Manuel Valls – who has
gone on to anger the die-hard socialists
in his party and has been named a
traitor to socialist values. All the while,
Mr Hollande has been relegated to the
back seat – the latest opinion polls
have his approval at a dismal 18%. The
‘ordinary bloke,’ who in 2012 pledged
great things to les enfants de la patrie,
seems to have monumentally failed.
CityAM this January branded France
a “socialist failure.” How far is this the
case?
Mr Hollande’s 2012 agenda was a
mixture of populist taxation policies
targeting the ultra-rich – his 75% rate
on those earning over 1,000,000€
ignited international media frenzy, with
Gerard Depardieu’s departure well-
documented – and populist spending
policies, reducing retirement ages across
the board. When commentators like
London’s Boris Johnson witness the
migration of the French from France
it is these policies they cite as the
cause. “Hard-working Frenchmen,” the
argument goes, “are no longer being
rewarded for their efforts.” Indeed it
is not difficult to understand why –
French public debt and government
expenditure as a percentage of GDP are
at worrying levels. However, there is a
sense that much of this is structural. Is
this Mr Hollande’s fault?
In 2008, as la crise loomed, French
government expenditure as a percentage
of GDP stood at an eye-watering 61.1%
of GDP, at that time among the highest
in the world. All this was going on
four years before the accession of Mr
Hollande. Reporting on France’s public
finances, The Economist amusingly
quipped that “the French and their
benefits are like the Americans and
their guns.” Despite the obvious flaws in
France’s long-established statist agenda,
you just cannot separate the French from
their allocations. In some senses then the
situation in France is understandable.
The aftermath of 2008 saw a swing right
in European politics – Mr Hollande has
merely realigned the French people with
their ideological position. This ideology
is obviously unsustainable and shows
signs of breaking down, but the French
will cling to it until it is completely
defeated.
Across Europe, especially in what
is now known as the periphery, the
2014 European Elections have seen
a backlash against austerity. The
continental psyche is inexorably linked
with government spending in all sectors.
This will eventually need to come to an
end. Britain’s fortunes were turned on
their head when Mrs Thatcher took a
hatchet to the establishment, challenged
unquestioned norms. Above all, France
needs une dame de fer of her own, or
the flight of talent, investment and
prestige from the hexagon will continue.
Her schools, Universities and museums
show clearly the potential France holds
– they are among the best in Europe –
but without a sharp change in Policy
away from Mr Hollande’s initial dose
of Socialism France will be consigned
to the history books. Mr Valls’s “Plan
Économique” appears to recognise the
need for such a change. It is high time
that the Socialist Party, and the rest of
France, recognise it too. ƒ
Where do we go
from here?
Reading magazines as a
child, the schoolboys of the
19th century would imagine
the farthest corners of the
British Empire and envision
adventures and excitement.
Often, this would become a reality
– the Indian Civil Service’s top level
12
Francois Hollande
consisted almost entirely of Oxford and
Cambridge graduates. Then was a time
in which Britain knew her role and the
world looked up to her. Britain was the
world’s largest trader, largest empire,
largest economy and largest navy in
1880.
Fast forward to 2014. Though in the
post-Thatcher era we have somewhat
reversed the terminal decline of our
nation, with Tony Blair confidently
siding with the US over the War On
Terror, Britain still feels unable to find
her role in the new world. With huge
choices facing her – on Scotland and
especially on the European Union, the
years to 2018 could be pivotal for the
future of this country.
The European Union is in many was the
antithesis of British values and British
democracy. The Commission, the single
most powerful body in European
politics, consists of men whose names
most Britons have never heard. In the
European parliament, around two thirds
of Britons couldn’t even be bothered
to get out of bed. And yet this body is
responsible for a substantial amount
of British law, if not a majority. The
British, a people of proud heritage and
a 1,000 year democracy, are proud of
their traditions and national identity –
this is in stark contrast to the Germans,
who would altogether rather the last
century didn’t happen.
The monetary union, headed by
Frankfurt, has led the Eurozone’s
peripheral nations to become quasi-
slaves of the infinitely more productive
north. With the option of devaluation
off the cards, the likes of Greece have
had a very tough time. As Nigel Farage
comically commented, the “Germans
and the IMF” fly into Athens to dictate
domestic policy for the Greeks. The
idea that this could happen to Britain
is unthinkable – our national democracy
supersedes any technocrats the EU can
throw at us. More worrying is that
without effective redistribution of
wealth from core to periphery, the idea
of a federal Europe with a fiscal union
appears almost inevitable. I am adamant
that this should not happen to Britain –
we have but one thing to thank Gordon
Brown for, and that’s the maintenance
of the pound sterling.
However, in the short run, I favour Ed
Miliband’s strategy over that of UKIP
or the Conservatives. The immediate
benefit of being in the Union for trading
purposes, while having control over EU
laws, seems to overshadow the short-
term consequences. If a federalised
structure does turn out to be the
outcome, on the other hand, Britain
must vote to leave the European Union –
the nation state is not dead yet. Britons
feel British, not European. The Labour
party therefore, for once, has the right
idea. I feel the nation would be too
hasty to leave the Union which would
leave ineffaceable scars on our foreign
policy. Hence if any new treaty changes
were to be made which fundamentally
alter our relationship with the EU, we
must leave. A strong Britain can and
will exist outside the EU – the future of
Britain lies in ever closer ties with the
United States and the Commonwealth
– countries with which we have much
closer cultural homogeneity.
The second great challenge in 2014
is Scotland, whose independence
vote takes place this September. The
Scottish, too have a strong sense of
national identity, which links back to
the Gaelic language and culture. Many
Scots, like Trainspotting’s lead, played
by Euan McGregor, see the English as
an imperial overseer of the land of the
Scots. However, the Economic benefits
of staying together with Scotland make
the case for independence fall apart. As
the ”Better Together” union of Britain’s
three main political parties keep telling
us, Scotland does more trade with
the rest of Britain than it does with
anywhere else in the world. The history
of the nations, together, has been one of
the most spectacular on earth, building
railroads that crossed the country and
telegraph wires that stretched under the
world’s seas. Scots were prominent in the
expansion of Britain – James Watt being
a clear example of a Scot who punched
far above his weight. Was is important
here is that Britain together has more
influence, a stronger economy, and is
better equipped to wear the future’s
waves. Indeed, even the US President
Barack Obama spoke out in favour
of a United Kingdom. The Glorious
Revolution of 1688 changed the history
of Britain forever, and allowed Dutch
institutions in finance and business
to spread to Britain. In 1707 those
innovations were extended to Scotland
and over the following two centuries
the British did astonishing things. If we
keep together for another two hundred,
we can accomplish even more.
The road for Britain was caricatured
by The Economist newspaper as a
simple choice between “Great Britain”
and “Little England.” I don’t see it as
so simple – the newspaper argued that
Britain within the European Union gave
it more influence than it has outside
of it. This may be true for the short
run – Europe’s pitifully stagnating
economy will be overtaken by that
of the United States this year and by
China within two or three. The Old
World is slowly fading away, bogged
down by Socialism, demographic decline
and serious problems assimilating new
ethnic groups. Britain would be taking a
bold step leaving Europe, but the world
13
Great Britain or Little England?

POLITICS
has so much more to offer in the years
to come. Oxford, Cambridge, UCL and
the London School of Economics are
world-renowned names and have come to
endow Britain with a very high level of
human capital. Lawrence Summers, the
former Chariman of the Federal Reserve,
has argued that the real equilibrium
interest rate is under 0% - there is a
savings glut and nowhere to invest.
We need to make Britain a hub for all
the real loanable funds being churned
out by East Asian savers. Britain is
unquestionably the most accepting
and most tolerant society in the world.
Our immigrants are better assimilated
than those anywhere else in Europe,
even in the world. We need to continue
to do this – a points based system to
attract the world’s best and brightest
to come to Britain would do well to
replace the unrestricted movement of
peoples in Europe. This would provide
fuel for the fire of British productivity,
which has long lagged other Western
European nations and the United States.
Moreover, this would go a long way to
paying for the vast unfunded liabilities
promised to the old and the sick by the
government. The answer, in a sentence,
is that Britain needs to be more open,
and realise that there’s a world out there
beyond Europe.
Britain’s strengths outweigh her
weaknesses. Though the public tires
of foreign intervention, Britain has a
distinctive place in the world in her own
right. The British need to find the sense
of confidence they lost after the Second
World War. We can bestride the world
again, but in new ways.
British media has recognition around
the world, while in luxury cars Britain
reigns supreme. These strengths will be
the future of Britain, as she carves out a
place for herself in the world. ƒ
The End of Two-
Party Politics?
Charlie Dransfield
If you consider the past,
from 1945 to 2010 the
government was either
Labour or Conservative.
This portrays the country as a two-party
system and therefore even the slightest
change to the political precedent would
appear to show a decline of two-party
politics. For example it would be very
easy to argue that, whilst in a coalition,
the Liberal Democrats had achieved
power and therefore stated the claim to
be a major party. But, it isn’t as simple
as that.
In the modern world we have learnt to
be more accepting and open minded in
terms of all manner of things ranging
from race to political inclination. This
has meant there has been an increase
in choice provided and consequentially
a wider spread of power. In the last
general election the Green Party won
their first ever seat. Whist arguably
this is merely a speck on the political
canvas, in the past this would have been
unthinkable. There are many other
smaller parties, which whilst they may
not have achieved any success show the
accessibility of politics to everyone. One
party in particular has been making
headlines recently and that is UKIP,
after their recent success in Europe
they hope to carry the momentum
forward to the looming general election.
On the surface at least, it appears that
UKIP’s progression shows how two-
party politics is becoming a thing of the
past. In reality, however, the victory is
virtually meaningless. There are very
few actual advocates for UKIP with
many people simply using them as a
vehicle to highlight their dissatisfaction
with the current government and the
labour alternative presented. These
protest voters are very unlikely to
remain loyal to UKIP in the general
election as it carries more significance
than the European vote in the eyes of
the majority of the electorate. Therefore
despite their progress UKIP are very
unlikely to challenge any of the larger
parties in a significant way.
One of the things which is allowing
the larger parties to remain large is
the current electoral system. First Past
the Post is a plurality system, which
inherently favours the larger parties. For
a minor party with the archaic system
in place currently it will remain very
hard for them to expand and challenge
for power. There has been much debate
over whether or not electoral reform
should happen but it is up to the party
in government, which holds power to
organise the referendum.
There is a huge flaw in this principle
because the party in power is the largest
party, which is favoured by it.
]
14 15
Therefore the government would be very
unlikely to implement a referendum that
could be potentially weakening to it.
The Liberal Democrats tried to stage a
referendumbutitwasnotthereferendum
that they actually wanted, it was for the
Alternative Vote system. The result was
a resounding no and it therefore remains
harder than ever for the smaller parties
to have an impact in national politics.
There have been some fundamental
events in UK politics that could show an
exponential decrease in the traditional
concept of two- party politics. We have
seen a coalition last its full term for the
first time since the Second World War
and we have also seen a proletariat that
are willing to show their dissatisfaction
towards the main parties. With an ever-
approaching general election it will be
very interesting to see whether voters
return to the more mainstream options
after the protest vote that bolstered
UKIP or whether they will continue to
show support for the growing smaller
parties. The Liberal Democrats will also
hope to make a recovery and challenge
for power. ƒ
A problem at
the heart of
the American
Political
System?
Calvin Ngwena
Congress has failed to meet
its responsibility to pass
a budget before the fiscal
year that begins today. And
that means much of our
government must shutdown
effectively.’
These were the words written by
President Obama to millions of federal
employees who underwent temporary
leave due to the gridlock between the
White House and Congress. To people
not residing in the United States this
would be the biggest error in the system.
The separation of powers which aimed to
promote liberty and dispersal of power
had created a situation where little to
no significant laws could be passed by
Congress. Those from the UK who praise
our fused executive and legislature
branches are dumbfounded at how
hard it is to push through presidential
proposals for legislation in the US due
to the many procedures and loop holes
which exist in the legislative workings
of Congress.
However the fundamental mistake
here is that many of us, when judging
the American political system, fail
to perceive it through the eyes of
the American people. During the
Constitutional Convention in May 1787
the Founding Fathers’ goal was to stop
power from drifting into the hands of one
person, similar to rule from the British
king before the War of Independence.
This has led to the supported notion that
federal government should not have the
right to interfere in the day to day lives
of citizens. To most American citizens
the prospect of federal government
having the power to interfere in their
lives when some citizens live 3000 miles
away from Washington is comparable
to the distant rule of a tyrant king in
Britain.
So what other significant problems can
there be? To some, the biggest issue is
the excessive influence the Judiciary
holds over government legislation.
Ignoring the fact that members of the
federal judicial system are nominated
by the President…, the main criticism
is the loss of true neutrality as various
political ideologies have crept into the
Supreme Court. Currently there is the
serious issue of ideological blocs forming
within the highest court of appeal: one
originalist conservative bloc which aims
to treat the constitution arguably as a
sacred text and the other liberal bloc
who promote forms of judicial activism
to enhance the freedom of citizens.
This has led to one Supreme Court
judge, Justice Kennedy being termed
as the swing vote as he tends to vote
on either side depending on the issue.
This is alarming for Americans as once
again this has put too much power into
the hands of one individual, albeit
unintentionally.
Other Americans point to the inability
of the federal government to address the
inequality which African Americans
face today due to past discrimination
as the most pressing issue. This is not
“British productivity...
lagged other countries

POLITICS
to say there have not been attempts
to fix the wrongs done through past
enslavement. During the Reconstruction
after the civil war, federal government
tried to implement a number of policies
to increase the rights of former slaves,
such as extending the Thirteenth
Amendment to African Americans
and implementing affirmative action
under President Johnson in the 1960s.
These were however ferociously blocked
through state government actions
including Jim Crow policies which were
utilised by the Southern States in order
to maintain the idea of white supremacy.
In some people’s view this has caused
there still to be severe differences in
opportunity between African Americans
and White Americans, characterised by
a staggering 31% of African Americans
living in poverty, compared with only
11% of White Americans.
Nevertheless these are only two specific
problems. I have not mentioned the
problem of pressure groups’ activity
being possibly elitist, the troubling
levels of finance which fund election
campaigns or even the nature for
Presidents in times of crisis to extend
their powers and act against the laws
of the constitution. President Roosevelt
imprisoning Japanese American
citizens during the Second World War
due to ‘military necessity’ showed
how Presidents have the ability to
questionably suspend citizens’ rights at
their own will.
Maybe nothing can be done. Maybe the
system of the supposed superpower of
the world is broken beyond repair. But
I hope that through reading this, you
will now look not only at the failings
of Congress but every other element
of US system to judge its effectiveness.
Since the end of the Cold War countries
around the world have looked to mimic
the US system. Perhaps it’s not that great
after all. Fair and reasoned appraisal of
its effectiveness is what is desperately
needed. ƒ
A Distinctly
Scottish Choice
Charlie Dransfield
Thursday 18th of
September 2014 is a date
that will remain in the
memory of the Scottish
people for decades to follow.
It symbolises a chance for independence,
which they haven’t had for centuries.
This Referendum will greatly affect
the average Scotsman in everyday life
no matter what the outcome of the
referendum turns out to be. According
to the SNP, on a purely superficial level
an independent Scotland would result in
about an extra £1350 for the Scottish
citizens to spend annually due to the
reduced taxes. This statistic is the sort
of thing that, put on the front page of
a local newspaper, may cause people to
vote yes.
This attraction isn’t the only positive
change that independence would bring.
For example, the idea that Scotland gets
the power to control Scotland’s future.
The idea that Scotland is controlled
by legislature decided in Westminster
approximately 360 miles away is one
that doesn’t sit comfortably with its
people.
Scotland is also aggrieved by having
to accept policies because, as seen
with the current government, they
are often policies created by a party
largely rejected by the Scottish people.
For example, in 2010 Labour achieved
forty-two percent of the votes in
Scotland, which was more than any
other party, but the country had no
choice but to accept a Conservative-led
government. By becoming independent,
Scotland will be able to take control of
all manner of things, ranging from fiscal
policy right through the plans towards
global warming. The fact that the
Scottish people would be able to control
the Scottish future more coherently is a
vote winning idea.
It wouldn’t all be positive if Scotland
chose independence, however. Many
people predict that it will have a severe
impact on trade and therefore the
economy. The rest of the UK provides
seventy percent of Scotland’s trade and
this huge proportion is quite likely to be
reduced as the possibility of separation
could lead to hostility between
businesses.
The Scottish National Party have
realised the risk they are running
however and therefore are planning on
keeping the pound. Alex Sammond and
his supporters have fought long and
hard to make the idea of Independence
not only popular but also politically and
financially viable, although the idea of
keeping the pound greatly undermines
this.
Arguably, a sterling currency union
would be a way to preserve the trade
relations Scotland so heavily relies on,
because there will be no need for costly
currency conversion. No matter what
the outcome of the referendum there are
going to be changes.
To simplify such a monumental decision
into a ‘YES’ or a ‘NO’ is practical but
flawed Sadly, that isn’t going to stop Mr
Salmond and the upcoming events this
September from taking place. We shall
just have to see how they end up turning
out, for at this late stage in the day
there’s little we can do about it. ƒ
16
Scottish
Referendum: the
International
implications
Jonathan French & Will
Cowie
The moment will come
when we find out whether
the nationalist ramblings
of Alex Salmond have
convinced the Scots.
This has the obvious repercussions
of deciding the future of the United
Kingdom. However, there will also be
effects beyond our shores which many
people seem to have ignored.
Scotland is not the only region where
potential independence is something
of a talking point. Other regions such
as Catalonia in Spain and the Basque
Country in the Western Pyrenees are
also clamouring for independence
and we haven’t even mentioned the
independence issue in the Crimea.
Nationalist tendencies in these regions
and the belief that the inhabitants
of these areas have a right to self-
determination has resulted in cries
for referendums along the lines of the
impending Scottish Referendum. What
people in the UK have not quite grasped
is that these regions are waiting with
bated breath for the outcome of the
Scottish Referendum.
If voters vote “Yes” in September then
they will be choosing to break the Acts
of Union passed in 1706 and 1707. The
Union of the Kingdom is like a really
old marriage. Imagine a couple that
got married in their early twenties and
have now been married for what seems
like an age. They’ve been through their
highs and lows but have a long and stable
relationship which is the envy of many
other, now divorced couples like Sudan
and the former Soviet Union. Gorbachev
looks at the UK and sees all that could
have been.
Now this couple are having a slight tiff:
maybe Scotland thinks that England
is taking up too much of the bed or
maybe it was the way England “said”
something. Or maybe Scotland’s just
jealous of the way Dave and Barack
were looking at each other. But to take
the advantage of easy divorce laws (aka.
a referendum) would be the easy way
out. Think of the children and their
classmates who look and laugh at their
parents. Angela and François are finding
this just too funny. Meanwhile, gossip is
spreading like wildfire among the other
married couples. They think divorce
might be the way for them too. After all,
if the Act of Union is broken up, what
hope is there?
This is somewhat similar to the situation
in Europe. The other parents, Catalonia
and the Basque Country, are starting to
press for their own divorces. The lawyers
are hired and the legal proceedings are
about to start. The Scottish Referendum
is the first of a series of dominoes placed
around Europe. If the first domino falls,
it could trigger the collapse of many
countries throughout Europe and an
uprising of new independent nation
states. What might be next, the Republic
of Cornwall?
There are regions demanding self-
independence that will be eagerly
awaiting the outcome of the Scottish
Referendum. It will have effects that
reach far beyond our own shores. ƒ
17
Alex Salmond’s SNP is causing unrest at the heart of Westminster.

POLITICS: FEATURE
The Ashtead Conservative
Party office, tucked in the
back of the high street
Conservative Club, is not a
glamourous place.
A pre-fabricated, rather dilapidated
building, this place is where Chris
Grayling spends much of his time.
It is clear that Mr Grayling much
prefers his constituency to the bustle
of London. Sitting down at half past
eleven, Mr Grayling had obviously been
working for a few hours. Indeed the
brevity of our encounter reflected upon
his saturated schedule (so much for
politicians being lazy!) We spoke to the
Justice Secretary across a put-up table
in the Conservative Club’s hall. Indeed,
the photographs of Mrs Thatcher on the
walls illustrated the love for hard work
and individualism so prevalent in this
leafy, Home Counties retreat.
We began the encounter on Justice –
Mr Grayling’s schedule and his plans
for Britain’s Justice system. The ring
running through his reforms was clear
– we need to do more for less. Indeed
by extrapolation this has been the
single most prominent theme behind
this cabinet’s reforms. There was a
caveat however – we cannot, Mr Grayling
asserted, stop the courts from sending
an offender to prison. The key to saving
money in the justice system, he said, was
not through keeping dangerous people
out, but “stopping them from coming
back.” Successive governments have
tried to tackle Britain’s embarrassing
rate of reoffending, and little has been
done in the past to keep the percentage
down –two thirds of people who get short
sentences go on to reoffend. It must be
said that this has been taking place
among a broader fall in crime, but the
problem persists.
The big problem, Mr Grayling told us,
was that those who were in prison for
less than 12 months “got no support
or supervision whatever when they got
out.” Hence the Justice Department is
“changing the way the probation system
works.”
Grayling’s answer is a three-pronged
attack. Bringing out the best of the
“public, private and voluntary sectors”
would tackle the problem, Mr Grayling
said. The young men from poor
backgrounds, who make up the majority
of the prison population, “find it
difficult to get their lives back together
afterwards.” Mentoring, Mr Grayling
The Ricardian interviews Chris Grayling MP
Lewis Bizaoui, Felix Clarke and Oliver Northover Smith met Mr Grayling; Oliver writes:
18
Chris Grayling, MP.
said, was the answer, rather than mere
“supervision.”
Switching swiftly to the issue of legal
aid, Mr Grayling was confronted with
the question – should we ring-fence legal
aid? In the criminal sphere, Mr Grayling
agreed we should. When a “matter of
liberty,” one must always be defended
in court, Mr Grayling explained. The
matter becomes “more difficult” on the
civil side. Does it? Should a married
woman with an abusive husband be
denied legal aid for court appearances?
Regardless, Mr Grayling asserted that
this branch of the law was where cuts to
legal aid were necessary. Despite all that,
we spend “twice as much per head” as
other common law jurisdictions on legal
aid. It seems crazy to think so when the
UK faces a much higher burden of crime
than Canada, New Zealand or Australia.
The cuts are “difficult but necessary,”
and have been mostly “on the civil side.”
What about the government as a whole?
The Cameron cabinet has pushed
through a plethora of unpopular budget
cuts, but we still have a deficit equal to
5.4% of GDP each year. How do we get
from there to the “sustainable position”
Mr Grayling hankers after? In a standard
party-line response about balancing the
budget, Mr Grayling underlined the fact
that it would be us that would inherit
the debt accumulated by government.
He, like most of the cabinet, suggested
the Eurozone crisis was the principal
reason for Britain missing its deficit
elimination target, but that we would
balance the books “eventually.” As
Keynes said, “in the long run we’re all
dead” so it’d better come sooner rather
than later. If this government is to be
reelected in 2015, it will need to get
real about the deficit and start giving
concrete deadlines. Mr Grayling and I
are in agreement about the necessity of
spending cuts in order to avoid “taxes
going up.” This government needs to
stop talking and start doing.
Is getting things done even possible in
Westminster? The left, the teachers’
unions and the media have vilified
Michael Gove, the coalition’s most
prolific reformer. If reforming means
getting voted out, how are we going to
get the necessary reforms underway?
Mr Grayling told us that nobody who
is “affected by changes” is likely to be
happy about them. But as the education
establishments see the “benefits” of
“Michael’s reform programme” they
will come around. The Marxists in the
teachers’ unions are unlikely to warm to
Mr Gove any time soon – but if results
take so long to materialise, could reform
be impossible in our democracy? A
common theme of our discussion was
that lots of things “needed to happen.”
They do need to happen, but the
political difficulty involved is likely to
be incredibly hard to mitigate.
Mr Gove’s legacy is yet to be seen, but
how would Chris Grayling like to be
remembered? As Secretary of State for
Justice, probation reform was top for Mr
Grayling. He “hopes and believes” that
such changes will lead to a “sustained
fall” in reoffending. As successive
governments have wrestled with this
issue, history will tell if Mr Grayling
did the right thing. In the end, it will
all come down to how receptive those
leaving prison are to the mentoring
programme. Indeed, in a society in
which manual-labour jobs are being
progressively phased out by machines, it
is hard to see a place for unskilled male
workers in the future. Here’s hoping Mr
Grayling’s programme can stop these
circumstances dictating a fall back into
crime.
In Mr Grayling’s new Youth Offender
institution in the midlands, there have
been allegations that a return to the
use of corporal punishment may be on
the cards for misbehaving delinquents.
Mr Grayling painted a rosier picture.
This new institution, an £85m “secure
college” in Leicestershire, would be
aimed at removing the images of “iron
bars.” The goal was to achieve, according
to Mr Grayling, an “educational
institution with a fence around it.” Yet
the use of force to keep order may well
contravene the EU convention on Human
Rights – if a child refuses to leave a room,
can a “couple of officers pick them up
and make them?” That is a choice for
the courts – but Mr Grayling assures us
that there are “tight rules” surrounding
this procedure. The caricature of
the institution as “Victorian” was an
invention by a “left-wing pressure
group,” Mr Grayling explained. They
want small, communal facilities of 20
people for young offenders – obviously
that’s impossible, as Mr Grayling
explained. “You can’t build a serious
educational institution for 20 people.”
In the adult prisons, the “books for
prisoners” issue caused quite a stir
19

POLITICS
last year. “I’m afraid it’s the invention
of a left-wing pressure group,” Mr
Grayling told us. The regime tightening
in prisons, including the removal of
SkySports and the ability to remove
televisions from cells, have enflamed the
left, Mr Grayling said. His idea of prison
is not “watching the Sunday afternoon
match.” When confronted with the idea
of there being televisions at all, however,
Mr Grayling was decidedly for the
access to leisure for prisoners. Prison
is a balance, between “punishment,
rehabilitation and humanity.” Is this not
a truism, though? It seems difficult to
discern what new ideas Mr Grayling has
brought in to the prisons’ debate.
MovingontohispreviousworkasShadow
Home Secretary, we discussed the rise
of UKIP and the issue of immigration.
“Immigration is a big concern” was
Mr Grayling’s opening to his response.
On the other hand, he feels that the
“anti-politics protest vote” formerly
attributed to the Liberal Democrats,
is the reason for UKIP’s popularity.
The discussion then veered to a debate
about immigration from outside the EU,
which Mr Grayling explained was at the
“lowest level for a number of years.” He
subtly blamed Tony Blair’s New Labour
for the upward trend by explaining the
principal extra-EU immigration took
place between “1999 and recently.”
The principal debate however should be
on intra-EU immigration. Mr Grayling
told us that the free movement issue
would be on the cards in talks about a
reformed EU. We were skeptical – the
free movement appears to be central to
the European Union as an institution.
“We don’t want to concede defeat before
kicking off,” Mr Grayling said. It’s hard
to be confident that Britain would be
able to obtain an opt-out from the free-
movement clause. Does this effectively
consign us to a Brexit?
Speaking on the issue of voting and
the Conservative Party, Mr Grayling
was dismayed by the European Union
election’s turnout, but didn’t appear to
offer any tangible solutions. He merely
asserted the politicians’ standard
response that “our work matters to you.”
When asked whether the Conservatives
have a problem with the young, Mr
Grayling told us that in the Universities,
the Conservatives are “going very
strong.” As of the latest figures, there
are 18,000 members of Conservative
Future while Young Labour has nearly
40,000 members. At the adult level,
however, membership is almost equal to
both.
A Conservative Britain in 2020, Chris
Graylingexplained,wouldhave“sensible
finances, the tax burden is eased, the
school system has genuine results.” We’ll
have to see about that one. “Labour
could tear it all up,” Mr Grayling said.
Whether the necessary austerity will
take place under a second Conservative
government (or indeed coalition,) is yet
to be seen. I fear that this government
doesn’t have the conviction to see this
through. Delthat, the Conservatives are
the only people who can and will get
Britain back on track. ƒ
20
Chris Grayling sparked protest over his attempts to cut legal aid.
ECONOMICS
21
When one stops and thinks about the modern world, it is clear that Economics plays a critical role.
After a decade and a half of prosperity, high rates of economic growth are no longer a given and the economic policies
of various governments will play a vital role in their futures. One only has to look at the various issues currently
facing the UK to see this: the debate over a rise in the base rate of interest, the apparent housing bubble and the UK’s
role in Europe are all economic issues.
Moreover, it is not only national and international issues that are connected to Economics. At an individual level,
Economics is the study of how best to allocate your resources. This is especially relevant in the UK with nearly £1.5
trillion of household debt. In a society where households are increasingly reliant on payday lenders to pay their bills,
an appreciation of Economics is an increasingly advantageous asset. Economics plays a vital role in everyone’s lives,
whether we like it or not. Hence, a recognition and appreciation of this can only be beneficial for individuals and
for society.
Jonathan French, Section Editor

ECONOMICS
22
We live in a
meritocracy,
right? Wrong!
Will Cowie
It may surprise you to find
out that 21st
Britain is in
many ways the opposite of
a meritocracy. I’m going
to use three figures – just
three simple figures – to try
and set out my case.
The first figure comes in the form of a
ratio. Here it is: “149:1”. This figure here
is called the “pay ratio”. It represents
the multiple of chief executive pay to
average pay for FTSE companies. Or, in
laymen’s terms, the man at the top will
earn one hundred and forty nine times
as much as an average worker for his
company in a single year. Shocking? Yes.
Why? Three reasons.
One: this is a comparison with average
pay – not the pay of the poor Eastern
European person cleaning the floors at
sub-minimum wage but the average pay
– so this is really a staggering difference.
Two: this figure has more than doubled
in the last ten years. It has more than
doubled in a period which has seen
the worst economic slowdown since
the 1920s. Clearly the pay of these
executives bears no relation to their
performance, and this is in no way
fitting with the ‘meritocracy’ in which
we apparently live. Three: there is more
failure for the meritocracy here. If, as
the meritocracy dictates, we live in a
society where our salary, for example,
is determined on merit, can we account
for such large differentials in pay? Is an
executive really worth so so much more
than other workers? There is a line
between meritocracy and oligarchy, and
this figure betrays how we are moving
towards the latter.
The second figure is a much smaller
number: 0.5. This represents the UK’s
intergenerational earnings elasticity.
What on earth is that? Simply put, it
is a measure of how likely our children
are to earn the same salary as we earn.
Will poor kids become poor adults? Will
rich kids become rich adults? 0.5 might
seem like an alright score – there’s a
50% chance that a poor kid will become
a poor adult, but there’s the same
chance that the kid will be rich. Fair?
Well, no. It may surprise you to know
that UK’s intergenerational earnings
elasticity is worse than countries like
Norway, Denmark, Germany, Spain,
France, Switzerland, the USA. Oh, and
Pakistan, that well known champion
of equality. The UK’s 0.5 is the same
as Chile. In other words, whether our
kids will be poor or will be rich will
be determined not by their own ability
or merit but by how much money their
parents have. We cannot claim that
our society is a meritocracy if, clearly,
ability plays only a limiting factor in
where we go in society. We do not live in
a meritocracy.
Finally, a figure much closer to home.
28. The number of RGS students who
received offers from Oxbridge last year.
None of us would be arrogant enough to
admit that we could get into Oxbridge by
our own ability alone – the whole school
pulls together to get so many people in,
what with Mr Dunscombe’s seminars;
mock interviews and Oxbridge classes.
Yes, ability plays its part, but we would
be nowhere without the help we are
privileged to receive. How does this
relate? Well, just by living in Surrey
and just by going to this school, we
have massively increased our chances
of going to a good university, getting
a good degree and then getting a good
job. This is great news for us – but we
have to accept that this is because we
are here, now, at this school as opposed
to being purely on our own merit. Even
for us Guildfordians, the laws of the
meritocracy do not quite apply. ƒ
Mark Carney:
One year on
Jan Thilakawardana
Mark Carney has begun his
assignment to fix the UK’s
economy but how does it
look one year in?
Mark Carney is a winner. He went to
both Harvard and Oxford, earns over
£500,000 per year and is the first
foreign Governor of the Bank of England.
In the eyes of many he seemed a dream
appointment, if slightly unexpected.
Carney already possessed a wealth of
experience since he was appointed
Governor of the Bank of Canada
in 2008. Although he had received
criticism in Canada for being overly
optimistic about financial forecasts as
well as not being completely transparent
with the bank’s view on rates, Carney
was able to win over his critics through
his handling of the credit crisis and
recession.
Canada was the first G7 country to raise
interest rates after the crisis through
his detailed guidance on maintaining
interest levels at previously record low
levels for a period of time. Emergency
loan facilities were also introduced to
work in tandem with Carney’s advice
to lead Canada forward through the
recession. Although the Canadian
economy is smaller than the UK’s, the
transformation of the economy caught
23
the attention of the high powers at the
Bank of England. No wonder he seemed
like the perfect candidate to repair the
UK’s economy.
Carney introduced a new style of setup
for the Bank of England which seems
to portray his fresh view on banking
while also showing that he is happy to
make changes. It was widely unexpected
that two deputy governors would be
appointed but during March 2014
Carney began his shake-up. Nemat
Shafik and Ben Broadbent would take
care of the cleaning up of the markets,
reintroducing government bonds back
into the market without compromising
economic and taking charge of the
monetary policy (from Charlie Bean who
retired in June) respectively. I applaud
Mark Carney for choosing to modify and
alter the setup at the Bank of England.
It was his way of stamping his character
and authority on both the Bank and his
policies to create the perfect platform to
begin his rebuilding and strengthening
of the English economy.
‘One Mission. One Bank. Promoting
the good of the people of the United
Kingdom.’ - this cheesy strap line
advertises his transformation of the
Bank of England covers the simple and
fundamental aim of the Bank: protect
the economy from future financial
shocks without hindering current
growth.
House pricing instability is an area in
which Carney has received criticism
since the beginning of his tenure. The
problem aroused since he had to admit
that he had no direct control at all over
soaring house prices in prime central
London. The knock-on effect was that
the increasing property prices could
see other Londoners taking mortgages
which would be unaffordable with the
expected increase of interest rates.
The rich who cash-buy their properties
would be unaffected but the average
home owner who used a conventional
mortgage based system would be under
threat. The matter was further worsened
when Carney admitted to Teresa Pearce,
Labour MP for Erith and Thamesmead
(an affected London borough), that the
rising house prices could spread to the
rest of the country. House price increases
accelerated in April 2014, rising by
9.9% compared with the same month a
year ago (according to the ONS).
The shadow chancellor, Ed Balls, has
tried to defend Carney’s projections that
interest rates could rise to 2.5% over the
next five years. The early rise in interest
rates would affect millions of home
owners due to the distorted housing
market. The coalition government
should take the blame for placing low
rates at risk. Carney may have to, in
the worst scenario, rein in the housing
market and there will be rising interest
rates for everyone across the country.
The UK’s economy is rebuilding; for the
first time since August 2009 the Pound
Sterling broke over $1.70. Carney is
laying the foundation for the large
scale reconstruction process. His plan
has been developed for the future with
Nemat Shafik a likely candidate to
take the reins after Carney’s departure.
Sir Mervyn King (former Bank of
England Governor) described Carney
as, “an outstanding choice to succeed
me” so there will always be a sense of
expectation on Carney’s shoulders along
with criticism it carries; the welfare of
the British econ omy is in his hands but
winners always find a way to deal with
the pressure. ƒ
Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England.
“The UK’s economy is
rebounding...
Mark Carney,
Governor of the Bank of England

ECONOMICS
24
The case for fat
taxes
Matt Phillips
In the UK at the moment,
approximately a quarter
of adults are considered
obese.
Obesity is a growing problem, with
health risks such as a stroke, heart
disease, type-two diabetes and the risks
of certain forms of cancer all enhanced
by obesity. The problem is clear to see
in this country – the number of obese
people that you witness every day, say
while out shopping or at the cinema, has
considerably increased over the last ten
years. Since 1993, the obesity rate in
the UK for adults has almost doubled;
the current measures of combatting the
issue are evidently not being effective –
are fat taxes the answer?
By imposing a higher tax on unhealthy
and fattening food and drink, the
government pushes people to purchase
cheaper and healthier alternatives.
Yes, arguably, people suffering from
obesity would continue to purchase
their favourite, unhealthy foods.
However, a tax would help to stem the
problem amongst the younger members
of society. When out and about with
friends, the cheap and quick solution
for a meal is a stop off in a fast food
chain – it doesn’t take too much out of
your spending money, it’s easy and it
tastes good. However, if this food became
more expensive, thus taking it out of
the ‘cheap’ bracket, younger people may
turn to an alternative – a supermarket
salad or sandwich would be better than
a burger and chips.
The morbidly obese need serious
help, just making their favourite foods
more expensive will not make them
into a healthier person; they may be
beyond help in some sense. The way to
tackle this problem is from the roots,
preventing further obesity should be the
aim, and fat taxes can be the solution.
They will stop the youth of today being
reliant on the foods that will turn
them obese. Of course, there are other
measures that will support the fight
against obesity – for example, more PE
lessons for school children and better
education about the values of having a
healthy life and a balanced diet. These
are already present in the syllabus of
primary education today, however, in
order to aid the work of the fat taxes,
there needs to be more of this. This
is not about encouraging everyone to
have the perfect body image, as being
ridiculously thin is equally unhealthy,
but that is a separate issue. Having
said this, certain issues like obesity
cause great health risks and can result
in early death. In 2011-12, there were
11736 admissions to hospital because of
obesity, this is more than eleven times
higher than ten years previously. This
illustrates the grand scale of the health
risks that can be caused by being obese
and consequently it is certainly best
avoided.
Fat taxes would be beneficial in the
UK due to how taxing an unhealthy
/ life threating substance in the past,
in particular smoking, has greatly
reduced the number of people who
smoke. Obviously it is not this tax
alone that has reduced the number of
smokers, although the increased price
has been instrumental in the reduction
of smokers. Consequently, if fat taxes
were to be introduced, there would be
a disincentive to consume these types
of food and drink, and this combined
with more exercise and knowledge of
what you are eating and drinking, the
number of obese people in the UK would
be reduced.
The problem of obesity in the UK needs
to be prevented for the future. The
battle is currently being lost, and the
fight to combat the obese members of
the older generation is not going to be
won. We must, therefore, try to stop the
children of today from following in their
footsteps - fat taxes are the solution. ƒ
Austerity? What
austerity?
Felix Clarke
Growth may have returned,
but the debt crisis is only
worsening.
Despite all the tough talk, UK
government spending is still wildly
out of control. The coalition is falling
spectacularly short of its target of a
balanced budget within five years, with
our deficit-GDP ratio still the highest in
the European Union. The government
continues to overspend by around one
third of a billion pounds every day, and
the magic milepost of a net debt greater
than annual GDP rapidly approaches. To
put the debt in perspective, the average
tax-payer is already burdened with
25
£38,000 of public debt. Every year,
seven percent of government spending is
used to repay the interest on this debt –
a figure that is only increasing.
Our politicians show no signs of really
grasping this nettle, all too happy
to equate the return of economic
growth with a resolution of the debt
crisis. It is utterly dismaying to hear
David Cameron boasting on the Today
programme (26 May 2014) that his
government is ‘paying down the deficit’.
As all sixth-form economists will realise,
this comment is absurd and misleading:
while the deficit (Government spending
less taxation) has decreased, the overall
fiscal debt rapidly increases. One would
love to excuse this remark as a slip of
the tongue, but such language is sadly
commonplace. The government’s one-
third dent in the deficit is, naturally,
welcome, but to predict a surplus any
time soon is fanciful. The general mood
seems to be that austerity has simply
been a means to recover from recession,
so ceases to be relevant now that growth
has returned.
Such a crisis should be a cross-party
issue, but while the Tories at least
pretend to tackle it, Labour prefers
to ignore it all together. When asked
by Andrew Marr (26 January 2014)
whether spending was too high under
the last government, Shadow Chancellor,
Ed Balls, responded ‘No I don’t. Nor our
deficit, nor our national debt.’ What
hope have we of resolving this urgent
crisis when a man who may just be
running the economy this time next
year is so hopelessly deluded?
A Keynesian approach to public finances
is all very well, but forever conveniently
putting our faith in the notion that all
government spending will eventually be
returned as tax revenue (in the face of
years of disproof) is utterly reckless. One
would at least expect the Left to propose
to resolve the crisis by increasing tax
rates – although such a move would be
detrimental to the recovery. Instead,
anti-austerity groups such as The
People’s Assembly rally against the so-
called brutal cuts with not even an
acknowledgement of the reasons behind
austerity. What seems to be forgotten
is that the more debt interest the
government is required to pay each year,
the less money can be spent on welfare
and the NHS. A stance truly supportive
of the welfare state would recognise the
need for cuts now, to avoid collapse
later. The reason the government is so
reluctant to make the case for its own
austerity package is because once the
issue is raised, it quickly becomes clear
that it does not have the deficit under
control, as it would have the electorate
believe.
Of course austerity has been a painful
process for people who have had benefits
cut, but some far more severe measures
are necessary in order for the country to
live within its means and stop burdening
future generations with vast interest
bills, unavoidably causing further pain.
The profligacy of successive previous
governments would be to blame for this
pain, not the politician brave enough to
seize back control over the budget. ƒ
Cost of living
crisis: A real
issue or just
left-wing
propaganda?
James Eggington
The financial crisis has
provoked a somewhat
predictable response from
the two main parties in
British politics.
David Cameron’s well-advertised
“Long-term Economic Plan” of cutting
corporation tax, building infrastructure
and creating work incentives to
encouragegrowthseemslikeareasonable
conservative strategy to deal with the
slump. The response from Ed Miliband
was inevitable: that the poorest have
suffered the most in this crisis and it is
the Tories’ fault. If that was not enough,
he even claims that “the Government is
making the situation worse - the cost of
living crisis will not go away even when

ECONOMICS
26
the economy recovers.” Such criticism is
not unexpected from the leader of the
opposition, especially when Cameron’s
plan appears to be working: in May
2014 CPI inflation fell to 1.5% - its
lowest level in five years. In the same
month it was announced there were two
million more private sector jobs than
in 2010 and the EEF reported that UK
manufacturers are more confident about
growth than at any time since 2007.
These figures suggest that Britain is
finally on the right track to recovery.
But could Miliband actually be
pointing out an unnoticed flaw in the
Conservative policy? Will the whole of
Britain really benefit from their plan?
It must be remembered that the facts
given above are generalisations about
the whole UK, which run the risk of
leaving some groups with a lack of
representation.
The Resolution Foundation’s report on
Living Standards supports Miliband’s
concerns. If Cameron’s plan is creating
jobs and encouraging investment, then
surely incomes should be higher than
in the 2007-2010 period, the very
pitfall of the crisis? Not only have
they not improved for low-to-middle
income earners, but they have made
a significant decrease of £1400 per
person from 2009 to 2013. Given that
real national income actually increased
in this period, it is clear that those two
million extra private sector jobs, which
the Prime Minister boasted about,
mainly benefitted the wealthier Brits.
Decreases in income still have no
significance until we consider how
prices have changed. Unfortunately,
the stats reveal no silver lining. During
this decrease in incomes of £1400 for
working class people, CPI inflation rose
as high as 3.7% and never dropped below
1.3%. Additionally, from April 2010 to
April 2014 fuel prices have collectively
gone up an average of 11.9%. Surges in
energy costs disproportionately hurt the
working class - as energy bills take up a
higher percentage of their income than
richer citizens.
Moreover, The Resolution Foundation’s
report revealed something even more
worrying: goods and services mainly
bought by the poor have inflated more
than products which the rich spend
money on. So not only have living costs
risen for the whole of society, but they
have gone up more for those who can
afford them least. How does a low income
earner deal with a decrease in salary and
more expensive bills at the same time?
Surely the government will intervene
and relieve some of the damages?
This hope is optimistic at best.
Government debt was roughly £1.3
trillion as of 2014 and Cameron has
stated that his plan is to reduce that in
the coming years. The BBC predicts us
to have no budget deficit by 2018 due to
the forthcoming cuts. There can be no
doubting that a Tory government who
wants to give people as much incentive
to work as possible is going to have little
remorse in shredding the Job Seeker’s
Allowance. With UKIP winning the
European Election and an underlying
concern among their supporters that
immigrants are off the system rather
than adding to it, this policy may
even win the Conservative party votes.
All we can be sure of is that, unless
Cameron’s long-term economic recovery
starts paying its dividends to the poor
of Britain, Miliband’s fears of a deep
cost of living crisis seem frighteningly
realistic. ƒ
The sinfulness
of ‘sin taxes’
Textbook economic theory
tells us that the market has
a tendency to fail and that
explains government action
to combat it.
Without doubt, some behaviours so
rife in our society could really do with
being cut back. Smoking, Alcoholism,
Gambling – all are direct causes of
serious strife and social upheaval.
On the face of it, the government has
had, traditionally, a very small policy
toolkit. The failure of outright bans, as
seen by illegal gambling in the US or
the failure of the Prohibition, has led
most governments to the consensus that
indirect taxation is the best solution
to the problem. However, as with all
government actions, there was a serious
cost which overshadows the benefits
in terms of reduced consumption of
dangerous goods.
A shocking statistic which truly shows
the shocking extent to which these taxes
are a scourge is this: for low-income
smokers, according to the Institute of
Economic Affairs, a staggering 20% of
one’s disposable income goes straight to
27
the Exchequer in the form of sin taxes
on tobacco. Moreover, as The Economist
has pointed out, tobacco is an inferior
good. Not only are low income earners
poor, but they are much, much more
likely to smoke than their richer, better
educated counterparts. This is a crime
for all to see, and a serious tool for
deception.
The effect is that for these people, the
government smiles and gives with one
hand in the form of benefits payments,
while silently stealing back that money
through hidden indirect taxation.
Moreover, it’s not just the true ‘sins’ that
are taxed at such a heavy rate. Any of
this group that own a car also contribute
to this figure, with astronomical taxes
on petrol. James Delingpole, a climate-
change sceptic, points to such taxes as
serious constraints on growth and points
it out as a specifically regressive tax.
The disingenuous nature of taking to
give back places an enormous weight on
people – most of whom pay little to no
income tax – means they are indirectly
feeling the squeeze.
The Labour party, bolstered by the
spin-doctor that led Barack Obama into
office in 2008, will place the majority
of their emphasis on the ‘cost of living
crisis’ that the party sees taking place in
the country. The real driver of poverty
is the overburden of taxes. For the very
poor, who are overwhelmingly more
likely to consume ‘sin’ products, these
are the taxes that hit hardest.
More generally, we need a bonfire
for taxes in the UK. But in a political
system in which social justice and
equality are taglines trumped out by
party leaders, we need to recognise
that real impoverishment does not
come from direct taxes or a lack of
welfare benefits. The horrific effects of
regressive taxation deprive poor families
of £1,286 per year on these taxes.
This is in addition to the £1,165 they
pay in VAT. All this despite massively
lower rates of car ownership or alcohol
consumption among the poor. This is
the sign of a regressive taxes if ever they
existed – for some poor families (those
with a car, who smoke and drink heavily)
spend an eye-watering 37% of their
income on sin taxes. This is compared
to just 15% for the top quintile. We are
putting an unnecessary burden on those
who cannot afford it. It’s time to take a
hatchet to regressive taxation. We need
to stop being aggressively regressive. ƒ
Is this economic
recovery too
driven by the
South?
Samuel Lewis
The UK’s post-recession
recovery is now in full
swing.
In the first three months of 2014, the
economy expanded at its fastest annual
rate since 2007, with estimates now
suggesting that it has finally surpassed
its pre-recession peak. The recovery
has even been blamed for the current
backlog at the Passport Office, which
has seen more applications for new or
renewed passports between March and
May than at any other stage in the past
twelve years.
Recent figures also indicate that the
economy is diversifying, which will help
to ease fears that a sudden end to what
some believe is a house price bubble
could ruin the entire recovery. Whilst
consumer spending is still one of the
main contributors to economic growth in
the UK, business investment is picking
up rapidly. This has now increased for
five consecutive quarters (the longest
run since 1998), at a rate of 8.7% on an
annual basis. In addition, manufacturing
levels have risen by 4.4% in the year to
April 2014. With business optimism
close to a fifteen-year high, these areas
are likely to continue improving, along
with other areas such as exports, once
the Eurozone recovery takes hold. As a
result, barring a dramatic short-term
crash in house prices, the recovery looks
set to continue at a relatively sustainable
level.
However, in the North of the country, the
argument that the recovery is well under
way seems extremely questionable. A
major driver of the economy has been
house price growth. In the year to
March 2014, house prices in London
rose by a huge seventten percent. The
corresponding figures for the North-
West of England, Scotland and Northern
Ireland were 3.1%, 0.8% and 0.3%
respectively. These figures show an
alarming differential between the states
of the economy across the UK. Not only
does it make it even harder for people to
move from the North of the UK to the
South, but as some of these figures are
lower than inflation rates, home-owners
in certain regions are actually becoming
poorer in real terms. Becoming poorer
is certainly not something generally
associated with an economic recovery.
The disparity of house-price growth in
the UK means that consumer spending
levels have hardly changed in large
swathes of the country. In Scotland,

ECONOMICS
28
levels were negative in the year to
March. It must be noted that the biggest
improvement in the whole of the UK
was in the North-East (1.9%), although
this is partially due to the fact that the
region started in a much worse position
than areas such as the South-East which
still saw consumer spending growth
of 1.7%. This point demonstrates that
the economic recovery is being driven
by the South and very slowly feeding
through to the North.
The Southern-dominated recovery has at
least fed through to the manufacturing
sector which is predominantly based in
the North of England. This should be
good news for firms as bigger revenues
will result in more money available
for investment that can allow greater
production levels in the near-future
or increased productivity, which is
currently a major drag on the recovery.
Workers will also benefit: wages will
increase gradually and unemployment
will fall. This is especially good news
in the North-East of England, where
unemployment levels were still in
double figures at the beginning of the
year. The problem is that the growth
of manufacturing is almost entirely
down to increased demand within
the UK, especially in the South. With
virtually no extra demand from abroad
manufacturing simply cannot continue
to rise at such a rate for more than a
few years. This means that the recovery
is currently highly dependent on the
South and will soon become dependent
on the North. A sudden recovery in
the North is, therefore, necessary but
unlikely.
The need for recovery outside of the
South is, therefore, clear. Whilst it
seems fairly clear that the economy as
a whole is improving, it is not possible
to have sustainable growth without
improvements elsewhere. We have little
say on the recovery outside of our
borders. Therefore, we need the North
to recover soon so that the country does
not end up both unable to recover and
even more divided in terms of wealth
and the general standard of living. ƒ
End help-to-
buy and start
building
Felix Clarke
At the start of June, the
European Commission
released a report, calling
on George Osborne, among
other things, to rein in his
help-to-buy scheme.
As much as one resents such nosey
interfering from Brussels, our
Government would do well to heed the
Commission’s warning.
The old Conservative vision of a
‘property-owning democracy’ is a noble
ideal. Allowing more people to own their
own homes increases self-reliance and
gives people more of a stake in society
– which can only be good things. More
cynically, however, such policies are real
vote-winners, as Margaret Thatcher
experienced after giving council tenants
the ‘right-to-buy’ their council houses in
the 1980s.
However, in the case of help-to-buy, the
benefits do not outweigh the potential
costs. The government’s help-to-buy
scheme, announced in March 2013, is
two-fold. The first aspect is the period
of interest-free loans for buyers of new-
builds. The UK has a chronic shortfall
Is London creating false hope for the rest of the UK?
29
of house-building, so any stimulation
here is very welcome. Stage two of help-
to-buy, the ‘mortgage guarantee’, means
that the government guarantees up to
fifteen percent of the property value,
if the buyer provides a five-percent
deposit and the house is worth less than
£600,000. By easing mortgage access,
the scheme further pushes up house
prices.
Adding heat to the housing market is a
particular concern because house prices
are prone to bubbles. House-price
inflation is often self-perpetuating, as
consumers see rising prices as a call
to buy, boosting demand. The housing
market can soon spiral out of control in
a series of destabilising boom-and-bust
cycles – just what our fledgling recovery
does not need. Like conventional
inflation, house-price inflation leads
to fiscal drag. As pointed out by the
European Commission’s report, rising
house prices have pushed low-income
families into higher council-tax brackets.
The Government assures us that house
price inflation is driven by market
influences, rather than help-to-buy.
Indeed, only seven thousand mortgages
were completed using stage two of the
scheme in the first six months of the
scheme. More significant than help-to-
buy in boosting house prices are factors
such as insufficient house-building
despite a growing population, low
interest rates and growing consumer
confidence. Furthermore, in London,
the influx of wealthy foreigners looking
for luxury houses and apartments has
seen prices in the capital soar far above
the national average.
The real, unseen damage of help-to-
buy is in its encouragement of the
same culture of reckless lending that
in America sparked the global financial
crisis of 2008, from which we have only
recently emerged. Commentators warn
that banks are now promoting riskier
mortgages in order to compete with
help-to-buy. The scheme itself only
encourages buyers to get into debt. The
interest-free loans expire after five years
and the government’s contribution to
mortgage deposits may leave consumers
with unaffordable repayments.
Consumers and the Government will
have to accept that it is often preferable
to rent. Home-ownership is often more
constraining than liberating when
accompanied by a huge mortgage.
If the Government really wants to help
people onto the property ladder, it
needs to start encouraging building on
a huge scale. The Government would
not necessarily have to develop on the
green-belt, angering the shire-Tory vote,
as many commentators would have us
believe. Indeed, there is space for two
and a half million homes on the UK’s
brownfield sites. Significant subsidies
of house building would take some
pressure out of the housing market,
lowering prices and allowing first-time
buyers on to the housing ladder without
being lumbered with debt. ƒ
Will we live
to regret
quantitative
easing?
Phil Haggart
The Monetary Policy
Committee’s recent decision
to expand the money supply
through large-scale asset
purchases shifted the focus
of monetary policy towards
the quantity of money as
well as the price of money.
With Bank Rate close to zero, asset
purchases should provide an additional
stimulus to nominal spending and so help
meet the inflation target of two percent.
This should come about through their
impact on asset prices, expectations
and the availability of credit. However,
there is considerable uncertainty about
the strength and pace with which these
effects will feed through. That will
depend in part on what sellers do with
the money they receive in exchange
for the assets they sell to the Bank of
England and the response of banks to
the additional liquidity they obtain. If
used successfully, quantitative easing
can be used to fuel economic growth,
since money funnelled into the economy
should allow people to more comfortably
make purchases. This can have a trickle-

ECONOMICS
down effect on both the consumer
and business communities, leading to
increased stock market performance
and GDP growth. However, quantitative
easing forces investors to step into ever-
riskier investments which could cause
an enormous blow in a subsequent
recession.
Back in 2001, the Bank of Japan adopted
the unconventional monetary policy
tool to fight domestic deflation. Interest
rates at the time were close to zero and
could no longer influence the economy
to promote economic growth. The BOJ
increased the commercial bank current
account balance from ¥5 trillion to
¥35 trillion (approximately US$300
billion) over a four-year period starting
in March 2001. With quantitative
easing, it flooded commercial banks
with excess liquidity to promote private
lending, leaving them with large stocks
of excess reserves and therefore little
risk of a liquidity shortage. However,
how successful was this?
Nearly a decade after Japan’s central
bank first experimented with the policy,
the country remains mired in deflation,
a general decline in wages and prices
that has crippled its economy. At first, it
appeared the programme had succeeded
in stabilising the economy and halting
the slide in prices. But deflation has
returned with a vengeance over the past
two years, putting the Bank of Japan
back in the spotlight.
So why didn’t quantitative easing work
in Japan? Critics say the Japanese
central bank wasn’t aggressive enough
in launching and expanding its bond-
buying program—then dropped it too
soon. In 2006, prices had just started
rising-asignthatquantitativeeasingwas
beginning to work. But some indicators
were already signalling a slowdown in
the economy. BOJ officials also seemed
half-hearted as they launched the policy,
failing to explain it sufficiently or
making a strong case for public support.
If the bank of England decides to follow
in the BOJ’s footsteps, they must be
cautions of the many consequences that
can arise from such a risky monetary
policy. Should QE achieve a temporary
lift in economic growth through higher
credit extension, inflation expectations
will rise immediately as the enormous
amount of money created flows into the
real economy. Investors in bonds will
anticipate this, and will begin selling
bonds – they lose more value the higher
inflation expectations – so there is a
high risks that interest rates rise even
more than inflation. The result is that it
becomes increasingly expensive for the
both the government and the private
sector to refinance debts.
Due to the great power and nature of
quantitative easing, I believe that it
should only be adopted as a ‘last resort’
policy when other conventional means
of stimulating the economy have failed.
If it becomes the norm with changing
interest rates, the global economy could
collapse. They say that desparate times
call for desparate measures. QE was one
such measure. We shall have to sit back
and see how the results of the experiment
unfold to truly assess whether or not is
was a success. The Japanese example
isn’t enough - the US and UK provide
more of what we need. ƒ
Chancellor George Orborne
HISTORY
31
1707. This date, obscure to many perhaps, illustrates perfectly why history is so crucial to consider
regardless of the field, be it politics, economics, finance or even sport. 2014 sees a referendum on Scotland
seeding from the Union, the very Union they joined in 1707.
History perhaps unravelling, history perhaps repeating...regardless, this subject is a vital pursuit for any academic.
Through studying the past we are able to trace patterns, themes and ideas through to the current affairs and events
discussed elsewhere within these pages.
Confucius, the great Eastern thinker, once said one ought to ‘study the past if you would define the future.’ This is the
perfect spirit for one to approach history with, an open mind willing to embrace the past in order to make sense of
the present. In a year that commemorates the start of the First World War, the bloodiest conflict in the history of the
entire globe, it is apt that we take a serious look at history. Sometimes brilliant, sometimes exhilarating, sometimes
terrifying, history always has something to show us; be it something that we ought to do or to be, or something that
should never again be done.
Ed Creedy, Section Editor
30

HISTORY
Did Friedrich
Engels seriously
alter Marxism?
Sam Norman
Co-author of The
Communist Manifesto,
Friedrich Engels is often
overlooked, in favour of his
more famous partner, Karl
Marx,) when it comes to
the foundation of Marxism.
Yet, Engels himself had a significant
influence not only over the works of
Marx but over the ideology itself. His
writings, organisation of Marx’s ideas
and his own comments on the works of
Marx may well have altered the focus
of Marxism and changed the meanings
of many of Marx’s writings, if modern
historians are to be believed.

An area where this can clearly be seen
is in the Marxist interpretation of
history: historical materialism. This
term describes the Marxist view that all
history is based on the changing of the
dominant class- capitalists overthrowing
aristocrats, the proletariat (workers)
overthrowing the capitalists, and so on-
not only this but also how humans must
work to produce the means of subsistence
(food and so forth). This interpretation
of history was put forward by Marx
himself but it was not until Engels’ 1878
work ‘Herr Eugen Dühring’s Revolution
in Science’, commonly known as ‘Anti-
Düring’, that this interpretation was
outlined clearly. Engels did attribute
the ideas of historical realism to Marx
himself, however, but it was Engels who
formalised them and make them clearer
– the ideas were gathered by Engels from
various writings by Marx and made into
one coherent interpretation of history.
Indeed, it was not until 1880, three
years after the death of Marx, that
Engels accepted the usage of the term
‘historical materialism’ to describe this
interpretation, again showing his role
in establishing what has come to be
known as the ‘Marxist interpretation of
history’, i.e. historical materialism.

It can therefore be seen that Engels was
incredibly important in the foundation
of the Marxist view of history. Even
in Marxist economic thought, Engels
was key. The publications of Marx’s
posthumous works were mainly done
by Engels, who organised the ideas and
commented on them, such as was the
case for the posthumous editions of
‘Das Kapital’, an incredibly influential
critical analysis of the capitalist system,
which became a key Marxist text.
But his influence was wider reaching,
although perhaps in more general terms.
Take, for example, ‘The Communist
Manifesto’, the most famous Marxist
work, which was written by both Marx
AND Engels. The fact that Engels co-
authored this key text shows that his
ideas were incredibly important to both
Marx and to the early followers of him.
His ideas became part of the foundations
of Marxism with his co-authoring of The
Communist Manifesto and while these
ideas may not have been drastically
different from those of Marx himself,
the fact remains that his ideas (or at
least a compromise between his ideas
and those of Marx) would have been
included within the manifesto, the most
well-known, perhaps most important,
work of Marxism.
In even more general terms, his influence
can be seen simply as a supporter and
financier of Marx. Engels came from a
wealthy background- his father was a
wealthy German cotton manufacturer-
and as a result he provided financial
support to Marx for when he was writing,
such as in the years preceding Marx’s
1867 work ‘Das Kapital’. Because of this
financial support, Engels spent time
with Marx, checking his writings, and
sharing ideas and comments. While this
may well be speculative, it would not be
too surprising if he influenced Marx’s
ideas in this period.
Without delving too much into
speculation, it should be clear that
Engels’ ideas are integral to Marxism.
But those ideas did not alter Marxism
because they were a fundamental part of
it from the start, from the writing of The
Communist Manifesto itself- perhaps a
more accurate term for the ideology is
Marist-Engelism. Or perhaps that term
is just too difficult to say... ƒ
The Melting Pot:
Why the West is
in part to blame
for the woes of the
Middle East today
Euan Middleton
The Middle East has always
been a turbulent place,
from the rise of Islam, to
the Crusades and to the
political conflicts of the
20th and 21st centuries.
32
Friedrich Engels
Today, however, we are in an even worse
situation than in past, in part down to
the greed of Britain and France at the
Treaty of Versailles over 90 years ago.
At the close of the Great War, Britain
and France were still the great Imperial
powers. For them imperialism was not
yet in decline; in fact, the British Empire
did not reach its peak until 1922, when
it annexed the majority of what few
colonies Germany had. Along with the
German land came mandates over large
areas of the Middle East. During the
Great War, British and Commonwealth
forces advanced north from British
controlled Egypt to fight the Turks, who
were at the time allied with Germany
and Austria-Hungary. They allied with
several Arab tribes, who were promised
independence if they assisted in the
fight against the Turks.
When the war came to its end in 1918,
the Allies promptly reneged on their
promises; the Arabs were not considered
advanced enough to run states along
the lines the West wished. Britain and
France essentially gave themselves vast
swathes as ‘mandates’. Britain took
Palestine, Jordan and Iraq, while the
French took charge in Lebanon and
Syria. These countries, still in existence
today, were drawn by European planners
so they would look neat on a map; they
did not take into account the people who
lived there.
Nearly a century on and the effects of
these partitions are beginning to be felt
in full force. Syria has been embroiled
in a vicious inner-conflict for over 3
years. It is home to diverse ethnic
and religious groups, including Kurds,
Armenians, Assyrians, Christians,
Druze, Alawite Shia and Arab Sunnis.
The country has been under the rule of
the Alawites Ba’ath party since 1963,
with presidents staying in some cases
for as long as 30 years. They represent
only 12% of the population. The sheer
number of different religions which
exist in Syria have shaped the civil war
there from a struggle for freedom to a
sectarian-orientated civil war. Arguably
the meddling of the West in places
they did not understand has led to an
increased ferocity in the nature of the
fighting in Syria today.
However, a much longer conflict has
engulfed the Middle East, that of the
creation of the state of Israel. Having
cut the state of Palestine out in 1919,
the West of 1945 decided that the
Jews really did need a home. Without
any consultation of the Arabs living
there, nor the wider community, they
redrew the lines; more than half the
land mass of Palestine became, in an
instant, an entirely separate nation. As
soon as the British withdrew in May
1948, the two sides were instantly at
war with each other. The Arab nations
stood by Palestine, particularly Syria,
Egypt, Jordan and Iraq. Two major wars
followed in 1967 and 1973, from which
Israel emerged victorious. In the present
day Israel has been expanding with
illegal settlements into what remains of
Palestine. The Western planners simply
did not foresee the social impact that the
changes they made would have on the
Middle East, with dire consequences.
The diverse social mix of peoples in what
are considered ‘nations’ in the middle
east do not allow them to have a single
identity and thus a “general will.” This
limits their ability to truly be nations. If
only the West had understood this, the
problem may have been averted.
Fresh unrest has arrived in the Middle
East. An Al-Qaeda affiliated Sunni
militant group known as ISIS has taken
control of much of Northern Iraq, with
the demoralised army fleeing before
them. This has led to the vast majority
of northern Iraq being removed from
central government control. In the north
east, the Kurds have practically achieved
independence. All this turmoil, and the
massacres and fighting that surrounds
it, can invariably be traced back to the
rushed planning of the borders of the
Middle East post World War I. Fed by
oncoming ideals of socialism and anti-
imperialism, the west’s quick retreats
from the Middle East since 1918 have
been nothing but a disaster. ƒ
33
“The west’s retreats...
have been a disaster
George Galloway, RESPECT MP

HISTORY
Pillars of
Civilization
Ed Creedy
What begun with the
glory of the ancient
Greeks ended with the
hiss and whirr of the great
machines of the industrial
revolution?
These changes encompassed vast
swathes of history, from the Classical
Mediterranean to the Renaissance
papacy of the sixteenth century, a single
process which has snowballed through
the narrative of the past c. 3000 years.
Unnoticed by many, it is only with the
benefit of hindsight that we can truly
consider the monumental nature of this
unseen process.
This process has shaped the culture
and society of our own lives today, as it
regards what is most instrumental and
central in the very way we act and live.
(Perhaps then this relevance suggests
that a study of history is imperative in
allowing us to understand our own times,
indeed our own selves.) It is a process of
transformation, from civilisations and
cultures based around belief systems in
the divine, to those based around a sense
of economic gain and self-promotion.
As is clearly observed throughout the
span of the Classical World, religion
was of paramount importance within
society. It pervaded all aspects of life and
provided each and every citizen, slave
and foreigner with an understanding
of both how one should, and how one
wanted, to act.
Belief in the deities of Greek or Roman
mythology provided the drive and
purpose for each and every act, be it
observation of feast days, festivals and
rituals, or the inordinate amount of
wealth and time accorded to either
one of these religious pursuits. There
were deities for all manner of everyday
and extraordinary objects, events and
feelings. One for each of war, peace,
love hate dreams or even riches. Yes:
even money was subordinate to religious
observation and adoration.
Famously, for example, the Siphnian
treasury at the important sanctuary
of Delphi was known for its elaborate
building and even more elaborate
and rich treasures stored within.
Silver, gold, ivory and precious stones
were all offered within in accordance
with religious belief, religion truly
dominated all aspects of the ancient
world, subjugating even the power of
wealth and riches.
Yet gradually this began to change.
Chronologically, the course of the
development of a ‘greed of gods’ to a
‘god of greed’ can be mapped through
the progression of time. Hints of this
natural subjugation to the divine being
questioned can be observed through
the biblical account of Judas, turncoat
against his beliefs for 40 silver coins,
and this was already occurring in merely
the first century AD.
Further on from this we can see the
wealthandcorruptionoftheRenaissance
Papacy in Rome (and for a time Avignon)
during the fifteenth and sixteenth
centuries. The pervasive desire for the
worldly had, even then, the capacity
to overwhelm the supposedly pious. It
was the nineteenth century where this
development found its completion. The
Industrial Revolution of this time lead
to cultures of greed as the rich and elite
found new ways to pursue greatness, no
longer via any religious means, but now
through the acquisition of wealth.
Finally civilization had shifted from
a spiritual to an economic quest. No
longer were the divine the pinnacle:
man had taken their place, and it was
simply the next wealthiest man who
was able to usurp the former. This
desire for economic benefit, this greed,
has continued into today’s world, the
financial disaster of 2008 epitomising
how far men will go these days to serve
their greed
Voltaire, who lived during the eighteenth
century, was a man who recognised this
monumental shift was taking place.
He pithily commented that ‘when it is
a question of money, everybody is of
the same religion’. He may well have
recognised the change that was taking
place, the shift from the subservience
of money to religion, to that of religion
unto money, and this comment alludes
to that. Perhaps even he is suggesting
that in shifting to what is an inherently
selfish worldview, we have in some way
sold our soul, abandoned our principles,
and deserted our spiritual nature. Or
maybe we can satisfy ourselves with the
cripsness of a new dollar bill.
Suffice to say, we’re addicted to greed.ƒ
34
WWII POW
Camp Economy
Harry Jones
Robert A. Radford, an
economist who was taken
prisoner during the Second
World War observed that
markets may appear
spontaneously, evenly
during the worst of times.
However, can a POW camp
really be seen as a simple
economy?
Radford wrote in ‘The Economic
Organisation of a POW Camp’ that he
found similar trends in the camp as to
a market stating ‘a POW camp provides
a living example of a simple economy’.
This idea initially developed because
prisoners wanted comfort from goods
as they were going through horrific
times. Prisoners were not aware of
what was unfolding within the camp;
such a market simply arose due to the
circumstances they faced. Each prisoner
was given a ration pack by the Red
Cross, which included basic foods and
cigarettes as well as private parcels
containing personal items. Prisoners
began to trade food and cigarettes and
it wasn’t too long before different foods
were priced in terms of cigarettes.
Thus cigarettes became a type of
currency in POW camps. They could be
seen as a perfect substitute for money as
they were desirable (as most people were
addicted through stress), very light and
convenient in size. Even if a prisoner
did not smoke, he knew that the other
prisoners would be willing to trade for
the cigarettes. This helped to cause a
driving demand. In addition, there is
no risk of hyperinflation as even when
more cigarettes were introduced into the
market, the ‘money’ supply was always
limited by smokers’ consumption. This
made it a deflationary currency in the
same manner as Bitcoin. However, this
also caused problems because cigarettes
would decrease in circulation as more
were consumed, before a huge injection
of cigarettes at one time caused prices to
change dramatically. This shows how the
market was actually working properly
with reactions to changes in supply
and demand. The prisoners could easily
alter the amount of tobacco in each
cigarette, which would lead to each one
being examined before the exchange.
Gresham’s Law states that bad money
will drive out the good money. In the
case of cigarettes, it was hard for the
currency to be completely uniform and
any good money was driven out. This
shows how even though cigarettes seemed
to be a currency, there were many faults
with it – cigarettes were not suitably
fungible, causing Radford to state that
‘the market was not yet perfect’.
However, the POW camp could be seen as
a very simplified example of how some
exchanges used to take place in different
parts of the world. In Virginia in the
1700s, cash was so scarce that farmers
would use tobacco as a cash crop to
exchange goods and buy the machinery
they needed. This was very similar to
the POW camp ‘tobacco mentality’,
albeit with the quality of tobacco under
study. In Virginia, however, the market
was regulated more as if the tobacco
was not of a decent quality, it would
be burned. This shows how they tried
to correct the market failure unlike in
the POW camp. This was only because
there was no intervention to correct the
market failure within the POW camp.
Even though the German guards and the
Red Cross (providing and monitoring
rations) acted as a type of state, they
did not regulate what happened within
exchanges. However, the POW camp
could be seen as an economy in this
sense because even though there was
no intervention, exchanges were still
taking places and the prisoners found
ways to get around any problems that
occurred.
Even though it may seem that the
POW camp is an example of a simple
economy, we can’t forget that it was in
fact a Prison Camp. This meant that
the all-powerful state of the German
guards and Red Cross were able to
control everything within the camp,
thus creating an entirely separate world
of its own. Therefore, the conditions of
the camp had already been set up and
prisoners were simply carrying out what
they already knew. Each prisoner had
no way of determining the resources
available to other prisoners and
therefore equality was created within
the camp. Cigarettes may have developed
into the currency only due to the fact
that German guards could be bribed
with them. If this was not the case
then there could have been a different
situation. The POW camp then, may not
be as similar to an economy as we first
thought, and therefore Radford’s article
must be taken lightly as simply a useful
insight into the world of economics. ƒ
American
economic
aggression
Rupert Fitzsimmons
How history explains the
United States’ economic
psychology.
American Economic policy is often
criticised for being aggressive and, on
some occasions, violent. There is little
doubt that Bush’s war in Iraq was
somewhat motivated by the Middle
East’s monopoly on oil. Indeed many
argue that the whole of the Cold
War was - aside from a mere clash of
ideologies - the classic American spirit
of ‘Coca-Cola-capitalism’ ‘kicking up a
fuss’ about not being able to continue
spreading, sucking up and dominating
35
“Belief in deities provided
purpose for every act
Ed Creedy

HISTORY
the world’s markets. Hence the
historian must ask himself where this
reckless desire to paint the world with
greenbacks actually came from. Was it
(as is widely believed) a result of the
free market reforms known commonly
as ‘Reaganomics’? Clearly not, Reagan
is too modern to explain this Cold War
mentality. Thus we must look earlier to
find the origin of this idea.
If one is willing to accept that this
economic outlook has been in existence
throughout the entirety of American
history, then such a cause should be
identifiable. This cause, I am willing to
suggest, is to be found in the land; quite
literally, in the geographical extent and
plentiful resources of the USA itself. For
the first immigrants to the vast lands,
in the form of Dutch settlers, were given
free reign over their ‘New World’ – it
was open for exploitation. As the years
progressed too, the settlers travelled west
in search of more arable land or mineral
deposits - the whole way, driving out
the forest, the buffalo and the Indian.
The land cost nothing, yet had value
beyond what the poor settlers could ever
have hoped for when embarking on this
voyage from Europe. This, I propose,
fuelled an obsession in the collective-
conscious of the Americas for capital
gain at the expense of no personal loss.
Subconsciously, money grew on trees
and was ripe for picking, irrespective of
the damage that it caused. As the land
ran out, however – as the settlers had
sucked the life out of the East’s forests,
hunted the buffalo of the Great Plains
to near extinction and the lands of the
West met rampant agrarianism – the no-
regrets, proto-Coca-Cola-capitalism that
had been born out of circumstance had
to turn elsewhere in order to continue
feeding the demands of the greedy.
It had to turn on both the American
immigrant inhabitant himself and the
wider neighbours of North America at
large. This psychology can be tracked
especially well in contemporary
America; great industrial powerhouses
such as British American Tobacco or
the many oil companies have, as a result
of their financial excellence, the ears
of both federal and local governments
throughout America and, due to their
lack of respect for the individual, have
no problem causing great anguish both
at home and abroad. It seems that so
long as a profit is turned, the damage
caused is nothing more than a minor
annoyance as it may diminish, if only
slightly, future profit and credibility.
A disgustingly immoral approach to
business that can only really be blamed
on the original plenty that faced the
European settler.
One further consideration to the
concept outlined above is found in
the very creation of the USA as a
sovereign state; it is fair to say that
prior to the establishment of the
Union by the founding fathers after
the Revolutionary War, the aggressive
economic expansionism was firmly in
place, as demonstrated above. However,
the war itself, surely, helped develop
this questionable mind-set. All is fair
in love and war, so the post-chivalric
code of dishonour states, and perhaps,
as the United States were begotten
in this climate and the wars – both
Revolutionary and Civil – touched so
many of the American people that this
conscience-free approach to war has
become engrained on the American
psyche at large. (Perhaps also, the reason
why the United States appears always be
so eager to engage in conflict – be it the
foreign War on Terror or the domestic
War on Drugs – is in order to justify,
at some deep psychological level, the
continuation of this motto in everyday
life.)
So, the American economic psychology
continues, created out of the pseudo-
utopian impression enveloping the early
settlers of the United States and then
perpetuated out of their fixation on
conflict. The infamous dollar bill carries
the curse of America’s history in every
citizens’ wallet. ƒ
What, if
anything, does
the Trolley Cart
Dilemma show
us?
Tim Foster
A trolley cart is careering
out of control. Up ahead are
five workers, who are about
to be killed by the trolley
cart.
But on a spur to the right stands a lone
individual. You, a bystander, happen to
be standing next to the lever that could
36
divert the trolley, (a move that would
save the five, yet sacrifice the one). Do
you pull it?
If you would pull the lever, then you are
not alone: most people when presented
with this scenario would do so. Consider,
however, a second example: you are no
longer next to the switch, but on a
bridge. The only way to save the workers
is to push a fat man onto the track. This
is certain to stop the trolley killing five
people, but again, at the expense of an
innocent life. Is it morally permissible
to push the man off the bridge? At
this point, many people are inclined
to change their mind, and let the five
workers die. But is this logical, given
that the outcomes of both scenarios is
mathematically identical?
Both of these situations make up the
trolley cart dilemma, a moral problem
first posed by Phillipa Foot in her 1967
paper, ‘Abortion and the Doctrine
of Double Effect’. It is a problem that
plays into thousands of economical and
historical issues, such as capitalism:
many may gain, but a few suffer as
a result. Or perhaps humanitarian
intervention, such as in Iraq in 2003,
or even now in 2014. Historians might
try to justify many wars, policies,
decisions and events by using the well-
known Vulcan phrase: ‘The needs of the
many, outweigh the needs of the few’.
Or, indeed, the one. The idea of ends
justifying means that can be traced
back to at least the Greeks, and maybe
further still. People’s answers to these
problems, and others like them, help to
identify whether their ethical outlook
is mainly teleological or deontological.
Teleological ethics locates moral value
in the consequences of an action: if an
action produces favourable outcomes
overall, then it is justified; in short, ‘the
ends justify the means’.
This is in stark contrast to a
deontological approach to ethics, where
actions are believed to have value in
and of themselves, regardless of the
consequences that they produce. In other
words, actions have intrinsic value, and
are not morally justified or condemned
by their consequences. When one
applies these moral outlooks to the
above dilemmas, the fault line is clearly
shown. Consequentialists (i.e. those
who subscribe to a teleological outlook)
would likely kill the one person in
both scenarios, arguing this is justified
as more lives are ultimately saved by
killing the one man. By contrast, most
deontologists would submit that murder
can never be justified, as it is always
wrong irrespective of the consequences.
Therefore, deontologists would likely
allow the five workers to die.
Whilst this analysis is illuminating on
an academic level, it fails to account for
the gut instinct of many, which is pull
the lever but not push the fat man. Is this
inconsistent, or can this differentiation
be ethically justified? The main attempt
used to try and justify this discrepancy
is to advocate the doctrine of double
effect. This notion, first discussed by
St. Thomas Aquinas, gives a name to the
reason why many have trouble accepting
that it’s permissible to push the man
off the bridge. The doctrine states
that, for an act to be moral, it must
produce good outcomes that are at least
as important as the action taken, and
which are governed by good intentions
(i.e. you cannot push the fat man for
fun). By these criteria, both acts seem
to be justified, however, there is one
final condition: the good effect must be
produced by the action, not by the bad
effect. This is why, for many, pulling the
switch is preferable to pushing the man
onto the tracks. By pulling the lever,
we are taking an action that indirectly
results in the death of the man on the
track. In the second example, we are
intentionally pushing the man to his
death. Based on the doctrine of double
effect therefore, whilst the former is
moral, the latter is not.
Does this really solve the problem?
Consider a final twist: you are back next
to the switch, like in the first scenario.
The problem remains identical, but
this time the person you are killing is
not a stranger, but the person you love
the most. Suddenly, things become
unclear again. The doctrine of double
effect cannot obviously defend killing a
stranger (who is probably an innocent
victim with his own loved ones) but
sparing a loved one. Is this reason to
doubt logic? Or emotions? Or both?
One thing is for sure: it is clear reason
to doubt that this dilemma will ever be
‘solved’. This, by extrapolation, says
much about most ethical problems.
Subjective preference even plays a part
in how much people value different
outcomes vis-a-vis decisions. The lack of
a straight distinction between emotions
and logic in problems like this will keep
us flummoxed for generations ƒ
37
The Trolley Cart Dilemma - would you kill one to save four?

HISTORY: FEATURE
How the Great War
redefined attitudes to
war in poetry.
As we approach the 100th anniversary
of the outbreak of World War One, much
attention will doubtlessly be centred on
how it reshaped the balance of power in
Europe and, more pertinently, its role
as the greatest human catastrophe ever,
with over 37 million casualties recorded.
Yet one of the war’s most enduring
legacies has been its effect on poetry.
Changing war from a heroic notion to
one of despair, it was in the destructive
fire of conflict where the famous poems
of Wilfred Owen and Siegfried Sassoon,
two of England’s favourite poets, were
forged. Conflict has of course often been
the subject of poetry as long as swords
and styluses have existed.
Two renowned classical writers, for
instance, Homer and Virgil, gained fame
through their epics, the Iliad and the
Aeneid respectively. Both narratives
revolve around warfare with ideas of
heroism in the characters of Achilles
and Aeneas woven into the lofty verse
with the Aeneid immediately setting
this tone by famously commencing with
the Latin word ‘arma’ (arms). A more
recent work that comes to mind on this
theme is Alfred, Lord Tennyson’s ‘The
Charge of the Light Brigade’, which
commemorates the event of the same
name that occurred during the Battle
of Balaclava in the Crimean War, raging
from 1853 until 1856. Historically a
disastrous engagement arising from poor
communications, it describes the ride of
600 men into ‘the valley of Death’. In
the aftermath of a devastating loss of
men, it offers a moving tribute to the
courage and heroism of the cavalry and,
similarly to classical notions, it lauds
the combatants with vocabulary such as
‘honour.’
Yet the attitude in the writings of those
who experienced the human atrocity
of 1914 onwards could not seem, by
comparison,furtherremoved.Interesting
this should seem as, at the start of the
war, the efforts of poets were not used
to deplore the brutality but rather to
promote enlistment as a form of jingoist
propaganda. Jessie Pope, notoriously the
addressee of Owen’s famous ‘Dulce et
Decorum Est’, a biting condemnation of
the idea that it is proper to serve and
die for one’s country, perceived World
War One as something of a ‘game’ and
even, shockingly, compared it to a game
of cricket (‘They’ll take the Kaiser’s
middle wicket’). Controversial certainly,
but this was not a view atypical of the
British public.
Indeed, the crippled persona of Owen’s
‘Disabled’ recalls how he enlisted
because he thought ‘he’d look a god in
kilts’ and to please ‘giddy’ women. It
took place, ‘after football, when he’d
drunk a peg’ as was common of those
in the pals’ battalions. The choice of
joining the army was motivated by
glory but it was the brutal reality that
changed attitudes entirely. ‘Disabled’
presents a negative perspective on the
Great War and its victims; the speaker
receives no glorious welcome upon
return, his vitality is ‘poured down
shell-holes’ and he metaphorically ‘waits
for dark’ to release him from his trauma.
Such despair is perfectly captured in
‘Futility’ also, when the soldier tending
to a casualty wonders ‘Are limbs… too
hard to stir?’ In posing this question, the
poet makes a riposte to Julian Grenfell’s
‘Into Battle’, which had shown Nature as
giving a pastoral warmth to the troops.
Instead, ‘Futility’ perhaps suggests that
even Nature has abandoned man.
Owen is perhaps the more celebrated of
the two but it was Sassoon’s influence
thataccountsforthebittertoneofOwen’s
verse after the men met and shared ideas
at Craiglockhart. Sassoon, who was to be
a victim of shellshock, is clearly scathing
of war and at times daring in his war
poetry. This is best illustrated in the
controversial ‘Base Details’, in which he
reproaches ‘puffy-faced’ and ‘petulant’
commanders, who, after ‘guzzling and
gulping in the best hotel’ return home
to die safely in the comfort of their own
beds. Whilst spurious in plausibility,
this entirely fabricated perception of
those behind the lines does show the
great antipathy felt towards those at
the top. Consider, for instance, Douglas
Haig, commander at the Somme, and
his nickname of ‘Butcher Haig’. More
acerbic still is ‘On Passing the New
Menin Gate’, where Sassoon derides the
memorial as a ‘sepulchre of crime’ that
celebrates ‘the world’s worst wound’
‘with pride’ as the ‘unheroic dead’
remain ‘nameless’, exemplifying the
view that there is no heroism in warfare.
Meanwhile, ‘Everyone Sang’ expresses
the unparalleled joy at the close of war,
with the Armistice, 11th November
1918. Sassoon’s comparison here is an
extremely effective one: ‘I was filled
with such delight / As prisoned birds
must find in freedom.’ The joy conveyed
here is born of the relief analogous to
that of the caged bird as it flies away
38
World War One’s Literary Legacy
Alex Goodchild
yet, unlike for the bird, World War One
has left an indelible mark on mind and
body of each soldier.
As shown, attitudes to war have
changed, yet how is the experience
actually presented in poetry and what
is Sassoon escaping from? His aptly
named ‘War Experience’ gives a taster
of what he described as ‘the foul beast…
that bludgeons life’ (The Dream). After
enlisting as a young man and putting
himself through ‘demented strife and
ghastly glooms of soul-conscripting
war, mechanic and volcanic’, Sassoon
considers that ‘Not much remains of
the hater/ Of purgatorial pains.’ The
veteran is but a spectre of his former
self, just as the persona in ‘Disabled’
is vividly pictured as ‘Legless, sown
short at elbow.’ It is the aforementioned
‘Dulce et Decorum Est’, though, which
provides the most graphic and terrible
image of a gas attack. Without his gas
mask, one man is left with ‘white eyes
writhing in his face’ that hangs ‘like a
devil’s sick of sin’. ‘At every jolt’ his
comrades can hear ‘the blood / Come
gargling from the froth-corrupted
lungs’. His state is ‘obscene as cancer,
bitter as the cud’ and he is left with
‘incurable sores’ on his tongue. Everyone
should rightly remember World War
One for its lasting effect on European
politics and, of course, the tragic human
losses, but one of its greatest effects was
to change the concept of war in poetry.
Notions of heroism previously seen in
classical poetry have vanished for one
that laments warfare as the ultimate
bringer of death and despair. As this
is nowhere better reflected than in the
poems of those contemporary fighters, it
is somewhat appropriate to end with the
words of Wilfred Owen’s preface.
This book is not about heroes. English
poetry is not yet fit to speak of them.
Nor is it about deeds, or lands, nor
anything about glory, honour, might,
majesty, dominion, or power, except
War... My subject is War, and the pity of
War… All a poet can do today is warn.
That is why true Poets must be truthful.
Said Preface was to precede a collection
of war poetry Owen intended to publish
in 1919. Perhaps the greatest tragedy
of war, certainly in terms of literature,
was the perishing of this masterful,
powerful poet exactly one week before
the Armistice was signed. It is hard for
us to tap into the wealth of literature
from the war because it is abstracted
from our time. ƒ
39

HISTORY
The Spanish
Empire and New
World Silver:
The Downfall of
the Empire?
Sam Norman
1604. The Spanish Empire
was the richest in Europe
in the late sixteenth and
early seventeenth centuries,
due to the massive influx
of gold and, particularly,
silver from the Americas.
Which Spain had colonised, more so
than any other European power. Potosi,
a Peruvian city, for example, became
famous due to its massive output of silver,
being called a land of ‘extraordinary
riches’ by Miguel de Cervantes in Don
Quixote. Things were thus looking very
positive for the future of the empire,
holding the equivalent of 1.5 trillion
dollars in gold and silver by 1600.
Despite this great wealth, economic
mismanagement led the empire into a
spiral of decline from which it could not
recover.
The influx of silver and gold into Spain
led to multiple problems. Perhaps the
biggest problem was that of inflation;
levels of which, in Spain, amounted to
1-1.5% per year, a figure that seems
low by modern standards but which
was actually rather devastating as the
currency was based on a silver metallic
standard; and thus inflation would only
be caused by debasement of the coinage
(replacing the silver or gold within it
with a cheaper metal) or by an increase
in the number of coins made due to an
increase in the amount of silver or gold.
The latter was the reason behind the
Spanish inflation, which led to prices
being almost 500% higher by 1650. This
price increase had not been seen before
in Europe and it did not just affect
Spain- England saw similar inflation as
did much of Europe. This led to higher
food prices and, more importantly,
higher arms prices, which was especially
devastating for the Spanish who were
fighting multiple wars in Europe
almost constantly through the sixteenth
century, usually against the French.
Even when not directly involved, Philip
II Hapsburg, king of Spain and the rest of
the Hapsburg lands, which encompassed
Austria, the Netherlands and the Holy
Roman Empire, would siphon off money
from Spain to fund wars in other parts
of his kingdom.To make the situation
worse, this inflation made ships far more
expensive for Spain. Since so much silver
and gold had to be exported to Europe
from America by the Spanish fleet, a
strong navy was incredibly important.
But the fleet was incredibly expensive
for the Spanish and thus they were open
to raids, both by privateers and other
countries. Sir Francis Drake alone stole
fifteen tons of silver in 1571- 1573 and
numerous Spanish coins, worth over
twenty-five million dollars. This piracy
significantly damaged Spain, who
needed the constant supply of Silver for
their coinage.
The influx of precious metals proved a
disaster for Spain. The Spanish Empire
went bankrupt several times in the
sixteenth century: 1557, 1560, 1576 and
1596 all saw Spain declare bankruptcy.
By 1600, Spain had amassed a debt of
over 85 million ducats, whereas their
annual income was only just under ten
million. Spain was in economic turmoil,
with the American bullion being used
as loans to Genoese merchants, who soon
had great control over the economy of
Spain.
The Empire could still maintain itself if
the only economic issue were inflation.
However, other problems furthered
the poor economic situation. Much of
Spain’s manufacturing was done by
the artisan classes of the Jews and the
Moriscos. However, both these classes
were expelled from Spain, the Jews
in 1492 and the Moriscos in 1609,
and as such, Spain became incredibly
dependent on foreign manufactured
goods, which, due to their high inflation
rates, became very expensive for them.
The Spanish Empire did survive all this,
however. Despite the pirate raids and
the foreign wars, the huge inflation and
the lack of manufacturing, the Spanish
Empire saw a recovery in the eighteenth
century, gaining lands in India and
stabilising their economy
The empire really started to face
difficulties in the early nineteenth
century, when the colonies in the New
World began seeking independence. But
despite this resurgence, the problems
caused by the silver and gold were still
deep wounds for the Spanish Empire.
The debt and expensive military
upkeep led the Empire to defeat in wars,
reducing their European territories,
losing valuable areas such as Naples
and the Netherlands. By no means were
these wounds caused by the silver and
gold fatal, but they were still a disaster,
the beginning of a spiral from which
Spain could not escape. ƒ
________________________________
A TURN FOR THE WORST - WHY
SPAIN SHOULD GO BACK TO GOLD
The impression given in this article is
that inflation and deflation under a
gold standard are driven by the supply
of gold or silver.
The housing boom experienced by the
Spanish from 2002 onwards was driven
partly by high demand driven by the
fundamentals. However, the ECB’s low
rate policy drove speculative booms in
housing. The results can now be seen.
Spain should learn from Austrian
School theorists like Ludwig von
Mises and Friedrick Hayek that a fiat
currency can lead to serious problems
when the central bank feels like going
on a printing spree.
40
FINANCE & MARKETS
41
Perpetually changing and subsequently altering our daily lives in one way or another, the financial sphere
holds a prodigious influence over society and societal practices.
Yet, many don’t take notice of this factor of preeminent importance due to its seeming lack of relevance to daily life.
My personal interest in the topic lies within this general consensus of disinterest, as I have become intrigued in its
news and relevancy over the past few years. Looking at specific markets such as commodities, manufacturing and
pharmaceuticals as well as the future outlook for our natural resources, I hope you’ll find our writers have portrayed
a brief introduction to the world of business as well as the future of Britain, encouraging you to further explore this
area of the world economy.
Lewis Bizaoui, Section Editor

FINANCE & MARKETS
Is Silver a
safe haven for
investors?
Lewis Bizaoui
For thousands of years,
silver has been traded and
considered to be a viable
store of value. Silver was
replaced as legal tender
by gold, when the gold
standard replaced the
silver standard in 1935.
Therefore, its sole modern purpose
is manufacturing, as well as being
traded as a commodity. The price,
which is driven by the usual factors
such as consumer speculation, supply
and demand is relatively volatile when
compared to its alternatives.
However, long term it seems to be a good
investment when one considers that its
nominal value in the marketplace has
tripled over the past nine years. This is
mainly due to its huge demand within
retail and manufacturing. Silver is not
only used in jewellery: it is also used for
components in photovoltaic cells and in
medical products, due to its antibacterial
properties. When one considers its wide
use, one starts to understand the scope
of demand for this product, despite its
marginal market size when compared
with the likes of Gold.
Consequently, for the investor looking
for a long-term upward trend, who is
willing to ignore the constant shifts in
market value, silver is a good option.
Furthermore, with gold prices so high,
one can purchase a much larger volume
of silver product for the same cost as a
relatively insignificant volume of gold.
This too adds to the appeal of silver as
the ‘poor man’s gold’.
Yet, dispute this ‘long term’ safety,
Silver has been subject to colossal
scandals throughout its history. In the
late twentieth century, the infamous
Hunt brothers gave birth to what is
known as ‘Silver Thursday’. Billionaire
boys who seemed to consider themselves
kings of the stock market decided to
accumulate a total market share of one
third of all non-governmentally owned
silver, in turn cornering the market
due to the lack of available product
and influencing a spike in prices.
Their initial investment soared 712%,
catapulting them into the exclusive club
of multibillionaires. Despite this initial
huge success, once market regulations
were changed and regulations were
placed on the trade of silver prices
plummeted, this time due to consumer
speculation leading to the immediate
loss of their overnight fortune.
Almost crippling the entire
American investment banking system
singlehandedly, unable to pay back
debts amassing to billions of dollars, the
Hunts certainly had a major impact on
the silver market. It is this uncertainty
of demand and huge volatility that
still detracts investors from trusting
this commodity to hold its value with
minimal risk.
Therefore, although it may be a viable
option unfortunately its history goes
against the possibility of ‘safety’. With
fewer and fewer options to consider
following the crippling collapse of
the financial markets in 2008, we are
still searching for the new safe haven
commodity that we can all trust and call
our best friend. I predict this search to
be unfruitful. ƒ
Pfizer and
AstraZeneca –
The infamous
takeover that
never was
James Fairley
Whilst Pfizer and
AstraZeneca may not be
household names, the
planned takeover, by Pfizer,
of AstraZeneca, was widely
discussed through many
different media platforms.
42
Could silver be safe?
This takeover would have seen the
creation of the world’s biggest drug
company, which would have seen
Pfizer and AstraZeneca controlling the
pharmaceutical market, a market which
is valued at around $300 billion a year,
and is set to increase in value to around
$400 billion in the next three years. A
terrifying prospect indeed.
For Pfizer, AstraZeneca was attractive
due to its experimental immune
cancer therapy drug, which has been
estimated to help raise AstraZeneca’s
sales by seventy-five percent, to around
$45billion. Moreover, certain tax
laws mean that, with AstraZeneca’s
headquarters being in London, if
New York based Pfizer completed the
merger, they could move the official
headquarters to London, where they
would have to pay a lower tax rate. So,
what went wrong? Why was there such
an ‘epic fail’?
This merger fell apart because the
price offered for AstraZeneca by Pfizer
was too low. In order to complete the
merger, Pfizer had to offer a valuation
of AstraZeneca, using a value-per-share
evaluation of AstraZeneca’s stocks. At
first, things proceeded as they normally
do in a merger, with Pfizer offering at
first low, and then increasing valuations
forAstraZeneca.However,asAstraZeneca
refused the offers, and as the price rose
and rose, Pfizer became less confident,
their valuations became less frequent,
and they started to backtrack slightly.
Finally, after offering a value per share
at around £50, they made a final bid at
£55 per share, which values the company
overall at around £69-70 billion.
AstraZeneca, who were demanding a
bid of around £74 billion, commented
that this valuation was not enough, with
their market capitalization of around
£55 billion. Although the board at
AstraZeneca were not comfortable with
this bid, some shareholders wanted
AstraZeneca to complete the deal, with
many, such as the AXA Group, calling
for the board to pass the decision onto
shareholders with a vote to decide the
outcome of the merger. However, there
was significant support from many
shareholders for the board’s decision
with notably the largest shareholder,
BlackRock, supporting AstraZeneca.
So, the merger fell apart. So what does
this actually mean for the UK? Primarily,
the merger would have created many
much needed job opportunities for the
UK, which at the moment has relatively
high unemployment of around 2.16
million people (ILO). With this merger,
a larger pharmaceutical company
would have been created, and with this
expansion, more people would have been
needed to complete more jobs, leading to
an increase in job opportunities.
However, there was worry amongst some
that Pfizer would relocate most of the
work back to the States, and instead
use the UK-based AstraZeneca in order
to reduce their tax bill. Therefore, this
could have in fact lead to a reduction
in available jobs as Pfizer closed down
valuable research and development sites
in the UK.
There was also a very significant
political angle to the takeover. All three
political parties were concerned about
the takeover, notably this impact on
jobs, and the effect on the much needed
investment in research and development
in the UK There is a significant lack
of investment into the R&D industry
in the U.K., and if Pfizer were to move
AstraZeneca’s facilities away from
the UK, this would have an extremely
detrimental effect on the already lacking
R&D industry in the UK.
Finally, there was worry that, due to the
magnitude of this takeover (the largest
takeover in British history), there were
not enough checks and balances in place
to help protect the British interest,
particularly since one of the drivers of
the deal was the reduced tax rate that
the company would have to pay.
Although there has been talk of a re-
negotiation, with many shareholders
encouraging AstraZeneca to reconsider
the proposal in the long run, British
law means that Pfizer cannot make
another merger offer for at least six
months. Therefore in the short run, we
can expect little news of this merger,
but we can expect significant pressure
on AstraZeneca to achieve the ambitious
performance targets it has set for itself
in defence. ƒ
Hit the road,
Frack - and
don’t you come
back
James Acomb
Surrey is next on the ‘frack
list’. Is fracking worth the
fuss?
Fracking is no doubt the most
controversial technique to extract
energy today. Fracking is the technique
of drilling down thousands of metres
into the Earth’s crust and injecting a
high-pressure mixture of chemicals as
well as gallons of water that fracture
the rock to release the gas. In France
it is banned, in the UK there has been
large opposition but the US are one of
43

FINANCE & MARKETS
the most active users of shale gas in the
world.
In America it has, to an extent been
successful, and since the 1970s there
has been a significant increase in the
growth of the fracking industry, with it
now being worth forty percent of their
Natural Gas Production. For example,
Consol Energy based in the US shut
down five coal mines to concentrate on
the use of shale gas production in West
Virginia. There are 650 trillion cubic
feet of shale gas reserves in America.
It definitely is a way forward but is it
the only way? The Global Sustainable
Institute, based at Anglia Ruskin
University, states that the UK only has
5.2 years left of oil reserves and three
years of gas reserves. This means we
will have to rely on Norway, Qatar and
Russia for oil and gas in the future.
In the North Sea, Britain’s oil and
gas fields are declining fast. By 2025,
production of oil and gas will fall from
1.7 to 1.2 million barrels per day. In the
long term, Britain will have to consider
alternatives.
Fracking is not popular with the media.
In America there have been reports of
polluted water supplies, opponents have
blamed fracking for earthquake tremors
in Blackpool 2011, some scientists
claim that 260 chemical released in
fracking are carcinogenic. There are also
fears that the energy will be sold to the
European market as exports rather than
being used domestically. In Balcombe,
West Sussex, there was considerable
opposition at the fracking site, with
protestors camping outside, claiming
the water supply will be polluted. A
year on, there is no evidence to support
this claim.
Reports from the British Geological
Survey show that although the areas of
proposed fracking are large (the total
is 1,300 trillion cubic feet) only one
tenth actually contain recoverable gas.
However, this tenth is the equivalent
of a century of North Sea Gas supply.
Another advantage of using fracking is
that it could attract £3.7 billion per year
of investment along with 74,000 jobs.
The government has now said it could
represent a huge part of our energy
supply, meaning we can keep up with
demand and the global energy crisis.
After the latest BGS report, the Weald
Basin is the next area companies want
to start drilling for gas, so Surrey is set
to be fracked. Some other areas which
have seen fracking have include Dorset,
Sussex, Hampshire, and Lancashire (
IGas drill here with a future venture
in East Midlands with GDF Suez who
will invest £30 million when they
commence drilling in 2015 after permits
are given). The Weald Basin contains 4.4
billion barrels of shale gas but further
investigations are needed as only one
percent might be extracted due to the
shale rock not being mature enough.
However, the BGS report should be
taken with caution. Fracking is another
way to ‘drill for dirty fossil fuels’ and
according to Friends Of The Earth
what is really needed is new ‘renewable
energy solutions to help UK’s energy
challenge’. Renewable Energy has to be
the long term goal but fracking could be
the short term solution. The government
has three years before our gas reserves
run out to sort out fracking, and its
community opposition.
So would you like drilling to occur
outside your house? Would £820,000
of compensation to your community (as
well as one percent of profits) persuade
you to allow it in your back garden?
Unfortunately for those of us who
fear the environmental and aesthetic
consequences, it seems we may not have
a choice. ƒ
Does HWM
Aston Martin
have an
independent
future?
Lewis Bizaoui
Bloomberg has suggested
that Aston Martin’s
independence acts as a
hindrance rather than
being advantageous to its
marketing model.
44
Could this be the future for the rolling hills of Surrey?
With a bright future ahead of the
firm due to increased research and
development within the sphere of hybrid
technologies for its models such as the
famous DB9, one would expect Aston
Martin to be barely keeping its head
above the surface of the tempestuous
waters that are the motor vehicle
markets.
However, it seems that Aston has
missed the ‘green’ boat with producers
such as Tesla expanding globally and
surpassing Aston Martin in orders
by the thousands. Furthermore, with
rival supercar producers shaping their
businesses to satisfy growing demand in
the east, it seems Aston’s business model
is simply too rigid for this market.
It does not help that Aston stands alone
without funding from larger ‘father’
corporations, such as FiatSPA and
Volkswagen. The only option for a stand-
alone producer is to rely on increasing
debt. ‘Borrow’ the way out seems to be
the solution for Aston’s head honchos.
What does that mean for the consumer?
In the short term, we should expect
increasing vehicle prices. Yet, in the
long term, developments in vehicle
production and cost efficiency should
lead to more competitive pricing. Also,
with the new eco-friendly Aston Martin
vehicle, continual costs such as petrol
consumption and congestion charges
will also fall, in turn hopefully launching
Aston Martin back into the big leagues.
The key word in that previous phrase is
‘hopefully’.
It seems as if Aston Martin is relying
on a huge consumer reaction to a
relatively small alteration to their
product, with CEO Dr. Bez claiming
‘Despite challenging market conditions
the company has increased its research,
development and investment activity’,
following a recent technology sharing
deal with German based Daimler.
Moreover, along with this ‘hope’ comes
colossal debt and a poor credit rating.
Many argue that instead of this risky
route into the future alone, the company
desperately needs an experienced, well-
resourced firm to become a majority
shareholder in order for HWM to absorb
potential losses and move forward.
This would, indeed, potentially be
detrimental to the British economy as it
would most likely result in production
moving out of Gaydon in England,
causing a massive drop in employment
opportunities due to the almost two
thousand British people AM employs.
Although that number doesn’t sound
dramatic, due to its specificity of
location, the population of Gaydon
would be in serious trouble, with much
of the local community employed
at the factory. Britain needs to be
moving in a positive direction in terms
of employment opportunities and
following the unsuccessful takeover of
AstraZeneca by Pfizer, there is obviously
much opposition to the net leakage of
investment within the UK.
HWM Aston Martin needs to seriously
reevaluate its business model and image.
Currently, with ties to luxury and Bond,
their consumer loyalty and desirability
should be high. Instead of aiming to
lower pricing and make the vehicles
more available to all consumers (shown
when their small city car, the Cygnet
was released), they should emphasise
their invaluable brand image to new
heights, following in the footsteps of the
impressing One-77. Keep it British, keep
it raw and keep it luxurious. ƒ
45
Aston Martin DB9

SOCIETY
46
The world around us is changing incredibly rapidly, with new technology being produced virtually
yearly, new discoveries weekly, and with it, the way we, as humans, is having to change.
For instance, as I am writing this, merely this week we have discovered a diamond in space the size of Earth, an
“unfeelability” cloak has been invented, and scientists have simulated time travel using photons. Society as whole
is affected by these developments, and must be incorporated into many different areas – The government must
debate some new ideas and plans, religion is changing and becoming seemingly less influential, and the many of the
things that we do to enjoy ourselves may not have existed this time last century.
Society is one of the few things that people cannot escape. By definition, society involves all the people in a ‘more
or less ordered community’. The things involved are not limited, and indeed there are many controversies that fall
into it, and is where the infamous crossover between religion, science, and politics lies. There may be no right or
wrong answer; it is all up to your own personal opinion. But society will affect you, it is (in my opinion), leading
in the right direction, towards a cleaner, greener, less restricted future. However, I invite you to make up your own
mind about many of the issues discussed herein. As the author Henry David Thoreau summed up, ‘What is the use
of a house if you haven’t got a tolerable planet to put it on?’
James Wheeler, Section Editor
Are we too
reliant on the
Internet?
James Wheeler
Nowadays in the world
of smartphones, ipads,
laptops, and many more
other internet-connected
devices, it is difficult
to avoid the use of the
internet virtually daily.
Studies have shown that Brits spend
forty-three hours – almost two whole
days – online every month. Surely this
is too much?
The internet is clea rly a wonderful
invention. Smartphones again have
changed the way we live – now we have
vast amounts of information in our
pockets, whether it be the BBC News and
Wikipedia, or Snapchat and Instagram.
You just need to get on a tube during
rush hour to see how many people are
on their phones at any one time: it is
simply accepted that you cannot have
a conversation with anyone else, as
people are engrossed in their screens.
There are huge benefits to having this
sort of information at your fingertips:
the football can be quickly checked,
any arguments can be (relatively) easily
settled, and you can easily keep in touch
with friends across the world.
However, this comes at a cost – it seems
that real, face to face conversations have
been declining. It is certainly a sad
state of affairs to see a group of people
together, but not actually talking to
each other, prioritising their phones.
The fact that families have had to resort
to banning phones from the dinner table
indicates a serious, widespread problem.
But it’s not just phones. Virtually
everything can be controlled remotely
nowadays, and one thing going wrong,
one experienced hacker, and there can
be catastrophic results. Watchdogs, a
recent game by Ubisoft, has picked up
on this: as Aiden Pearce, the protagonist,
you can control anything connected to
the Chicago ctOS (Central Operating
System), giving you the ability to
control traffic lights, hack ATMs, or
steal all the information you could ever
want about a person. Although only a
game, the developers have made sure
that everything that you can do in the
game can be achieved in real life with
the right equipment, skills, and a bit
of time. It seems like only a matter of
time until someone manages to use the
interconnectivity of, well, everything,
and who can exploit it in any way they
please.
But the benefits of the internet and
interconnectivity of data cannot
be argued against. Productivity has
improved tenfold; jobs have been
created which were previously hadn’t
existed; and globalisation has meant
that businesses, such as Amazon, have
reached sizes which could never have
been even dreamed of before the internet
– Amazon makes $83,000-worth of sales
every minute. Furthermore, information
can be shared virtually instantly to
anyone in the world; the lives of millions
of students worldwide have been easier
due to Google and Wikipedia, and the
days of trawling through pages and
pages of books for a quote are over.
Even simple things such as online
banking have saved time and money, and
have enabled millions of people across
Africa and other third world countries
to set up bank accounts, where the
money they have earned is safe.
In reality, the internet has benefitted
virtually everyone, both in the
developed and developing worlds. It has
revolutionised many, if not most, of the
small daily acts we do, and it is virtually
inescapable in the UK. However, we, as
a society, are in danger of becoming
addicted to our phones (especially
among teenagers) and to the internet,
and we need to realise that phones are
no replacement for actual face-to-face
contact. ƒ
A Changing
Music Industry
Sam Clarke
Guildford is a record
collector’s dream. Dusty
copiers of yesterday’s hits,
misses and just about
everything in between can
be acquired, second hand,
for between 50p and £500.
Ben’s Collectors Records, one such
retailer, is jam-packed every weekend
with enthusiasts of all ages, rummaging
in the boxes for that elusive copy of
Rubber Soul or, in the case of one of
my friends, Marvin Gaye’s Love Songs.
That music has changed over the past
thirty years is a given. Few could have
foreseen the impact of the internet on
an industry that was once dominated
by bloated record companies. The
differences, however, run deeper than
this.
We have not only changed how we
purchase and listen to music but also the
way we react to it, the way we appreciate
it and the way we let it impact our lives.
I’ll begin in East Greenwich, on the
21st June 2014, in block U10 of the O2
47

SOCIETY
Arena. On stage was perhaps one of the
most famous bands of the seventies, The
Eagles. A beautiful acoustic rendition of
Saturday Night had just been met with
rapturous applause and Glenn Frey, one
of the band members, was introducing
the next song. Suddenly, I was hit with
a realisation. No modern equivalent of
The Eagles exists. Of course many bands
have tried to copy them stylistically,
but the dinosaur bands of the seventies
and eighties, with record sales in the
tens of millions, are a thing of the past.
The most recent to ship more than ten
million copies in the US was Adele’s 21
in 2011. One has to look back to 1997 to
Shania Twain to find the last album to
sell over fifteen million copies.
The internet is largely responsible for
this rapid change. Record companies
used to be able to make huge profits
by investing in a number of bands and
peddling a narrow range of genres.
Nowadays, anyone can make and
distribute their own music through
programs such as FL Studio and Logic
Pro. Since the early 2000s, hundreds
of new styles have emerged. Ever since
Aphex Twin’s experiments with electro
in the early nineties, genre after genre
has emerged. House music, a style
originating in America in the 1980s,
gained popularity as the works of
new artists began to spread. Dubstep,
another electronic style, became
popular in the early/mid 2000s. Glitch
hop, electroswing, trap and hundreds of
other styles have taken off within the
last twenty years. And where new styles
meet old classics, mash-ups and remixes
provide interesting listening.
This diversification has been a problem
for many record labels. Artists, no longer
compelled by record labels to stay safely
within popularity’s boundaries, are
freer to experiment. Listeners find a
style they like, a niche is created and
the genre stays. Whereas in the 1980s
electro fans listened to electro, anyone
with an internet connection can find,
sample and enjoy the almost infinite
sub-genres. Producing ‘electronic music’
is no longer viable, since ‘electronic
music’ no longer exists as a single genre.
Listeners are spread out; more artists
produce, but their music is less listened
to. Glitch Hop Community, a YouTube
channel which uploads different artists’
songs, releases a new track almost daily.
Most go a year without passing 10,000
views. A record company would not
be able to sign such artists profitably
(besides, many artists offer free
downloads of their work).
And yet, music is still made and paid
for by listeners. Bandcamp, a website
that allows artists to charge for songs
without signing to a label, has made
$2.8 million for artists in the last thirty
days. It also provides real time sales and
analytics data. When a package like this
is offered for free to artists, it’s not hard
to see why record labels are falling out
of favour.
The way music is released has changed.
Albums used to be the mainstream,
with singles serving more as samples
for full works. Nowadays, the opposite
is true. Streaming services and
abundant smartphones have made it
a lot easier to pick out single songs.
Most electronic artists now release EPs
and LPs. Whole albums have become
the exception instead of the rule,
certainly with newer styles (see chart).
Indie and rock bands have continued to
release albums. However, they are less
structured. It’s very hard to find works
with a progressive structure and song
order such as Pink Floyd’s Dark Side
Of The Moon or The Who’s Tommy. For
all intents and purposes, mainstream
albums have become collections of
singles and LPs.
The way artists release music has
changed dramatically. Have our attitudes
towards it changed?
I jump now to Sweden, to a small, stuffy
room somewhere in Stockholm, the
capital. Stacks of servers with blinking
lights whir gently day and night. Inside
this building a revolution is happening,
as users connect to The Pirate Bay to
download just about any type of digital
content imaginable for free.
Since music existed, people have always
tried to listen to it without paying, and
piracy has made it easier than ever.
Illegally downloading or ‘torrenting’
music is a popular way to get the latest
tracks for free, particularly among cash-
strapped teens. Between January and
June 2012, ninety-seven million torrents
were shared in the US alone (Statista,
2014). This figure is set to increase,
as faster internet speeds mean whole
movies can be downloaded in minutes.
Piracy is a controversial topic, not least
48
because it takes income directly from
artists and producers. It’s been attacked
by publishers, record companies and
governments alike for destroying
creativity and discouraging talent.
Piracy is a crime and its continued
proliferation is certain to have
detrimental impacts on music and film.
That said, piracy has had some benefits.
The once bloated record labels of
yesteryear have seen their profits
tumble by sixty-four percent from their
peak in 1999 (Degusta, 2011). They have
been forced to trim up or risk going out
of business. This has made them more
sensitive to changes in trends and tastes.
Large record companies now produce a
wider range of popular styles. Newer
labels release newer genres. People have
more variety to listen to.
Artists and producers have since tried
to reduce piracy themselves. So far, they
have been successful. When Radiohead
released In Rainbows in 2008, they
allowed fans to pay their own price.
Three weeks later, the album had
rocketed to number one in the UK and
the US. A report by Warner/Chappell,
Radiohead’s label, claimed that “the
publisher was able to generate far more
money for both themselves and the band
than would have been possible under the
traditional system.” Smaller bands, who
lack the funds to pursue such a scheme,
have released songs directly onto piracy
websites, along with a plea to purchase
the song legally as well. Bandcamp
advertises specifically on torrent sites,
and can cite thousands of users who
ended up paying for music they were
about to download for free.
That people are willing to pay for
something they could easily get for free
is surprising. It also highlights how our
relationship with artists has changed.
Constant connectivity means fans
feel closer than ever to their favourite
singer or band. Thus, they are willing
to spend their money supporting them.
Governments and record labels have
failed to control piracy because people
don’t sympathise with them. Music is no
longer just a thing people listen to. It
has become a relationship between fans
and artists.
Ben’s shuts at 6:00pm. At the right time
of year, the sunlight streams through
the dusty windows as the last punters
make their purchases. The old posters
and sleeves which cover the walls and
ceilings are briefly illuminated. In this
light, their age becomes apparent, their
curling edges and bleached colours take
on an almost wistful sheen. In many
ways, they signal the end of an era
in which superstars and mega-labels
dominated music. Further down the
street, the same setting sun lights up
another shop. Inside, the rays reflect
off the freshly wrapped CDs and vinyls
of this year’s latest releases. The music
industry has changed dramatically.
Styles and genres have come and gone.
Music continues to push the boundaries
of creativity and ingenuity in a way few
other art forms can. ƒ
Will Baby
George ever sit
on the throne?
Felix Clarke
The popularity of the
British monarchy is the
highest it has been for
generations.
In recent years, the public has been
swept up in royal mania first for the
royal wedding, then for the Queen’s
diamond jubilee and then again for
the birth of Prince George. According
to recent polling, three quarters of
Britons support the monarchy. Contrast
this situation with other European
monarchies, and one understandably
feels confident of the health of our
monarchy. The abdication of Juan
Carlos has reignited the case for
republicanism in Spain, with 51% of
Spaniards now supporting a referendum.
In this light, there seems to be no reason
why our monarchy should not remain in
good health sixty years or so from now,
when the now nearly one-year-old Prince
George would come to the throne.
However, this sustained, and indeed
resurgent, popularity of the monarchy
owes itself to one individual: Queen
Elizabeth II is eighty-eight years old and
not getting any younger. Elizabeth is
warmly viewed as a distant, yet caring,
matriarch. The Queen has a spotless
record and, after sixty years of reign,
represents continuity and stability – she
will be a very tough act to follow indeed.
Soon after Charles becomes King, the
monarchy will start to look vulnerable.
The Queen’s political reticence has been
crucial in maintaining her popularity:
Elizabeth has taken great care never to be
seen to be in conflict with her ministers.
Each year the Queen dutifully reads out
her speech to parliament, with which
she must have sometimes profoundly
disagreed, without a hint of dissent.
Prince Charles, on the other hand, is
rightly seen as politically meddling,
far too easily overcome by the urge to
speak his mind. Charles has spoken out
on countless political issues, criticising
Tony Blair’s plans to ban fox-hunting,
to name one example. Charles once
even referred to the Chinese leaders
as ‘appalling old waxworks’; when one
considers that the Queen was recently
49
Revellers brave the rain for hours
to catch a glimpse of the Queen at
her Diamond Jubilee pageant, 2012.

SOCIETY
called upon to meet the Chinese
premier on his official visit to the UK,
it is easy to see how Charles’s previous
crass outbursts will cause problems
when he is King. The Prince is known
to often write long, disapproving letters
to ministers and even hold private
meetings with members of government.
In their times as Prime Minister,
both Margaret Thatcher and Tony
Blair complained to the Queen that
Charles’s numerous interventions
were ‘becoming unhelpful’. Charles’s
stubborn approach in this domain could
not be more different from the Queen’s
universally popular political aloofness.
As prince, Charles’s comments have
irritated politicians and the public,
and he shows no signs of reining them
in as King, pledging not to be ‘confined
to cutting ribbons’. An unelected head
of state must be apolitical; otherwise he
would quickly become viewed by the
British public as just another resented
politician.
Queen Elizabeth is removed from
the close scrutiny of the media and is
surrounded by a fond mystique. The
Queen’s public image is always pristine:
over the whole course of her sixty-year
reign, she has never once put a foot
wrong. Charles, on the other hand, is
a known adulterer and husband of a
divorcee – making him , among other
things, hardly the ideal candidate to
lead the Church of England. Charles’s
association with the Saudi royal family,
one of the most brutal autocratic regimes
in the world, shows, if nothing else,
that he has a lack of regard for his own
public image which may prove fatal as
King. The contrast between Elizabeth’s
grandmotherly image and Charles’s
tainted public perception is huge.
Elizabeth is also admired for her
perceived thrift: the Queen is a war-
baby who knows the value of money.
This image is invaluable in quelling
public criticism of royal extravagance.
This image, however, is one that the
next generation of royals sadly cannot
be said to share. Charles and Camilla
were widely criticised for their overly
extravagant renovation of Clarence
House in 2002 and the younger royals
are known to take luxury summer
holidays, at the expense of the tax payer.
The damage of perceived extravagance
to the popularity of a monarch was
dramatically shown in Spain in 2012.
King Juan Carlos had previously been
lauded for dismantling Francoism in
favour of democracy and later heroically
using his power as Commander-in-chief
of the armed forces to stop a coup
attempt in 1981. However, the King’s
immense popularity took a permanent
blow when, in the middle of Spain’s
painful recession, he went on a lavish
elephant hunt in Botswana. So great was
the public outrage that Juan Carlos was
eventually forced to apologise.
The length of Elizabeth’s reign
reinforces the sense of continuity and
stability through generations, on which
the monarchy depends. Any successor
to the Queen will feel unfamiliar: after
sixty years of Queen Elizabeth, anyone
else on the throne would be an alien.
The hand-over of the crown to the
Queen’s successor will create damaging
instability and immediately fan the
embers of a long-absent republican
debate. Indeed, despite William and
Catherine’s immensely popular recent
Australian tour, the Australian and
Canadian governments have announced
all but officially that they intend to
move to republicanism after Queen
Elizabeth’s death. The other thirteen
overseas Commonwealth realms are sure
to follow.
Monarchy already seems an outdated
concept. Britain is a hugely more
egalitarian society than a hundred years
ago. Meritocracy is now held up by
many as a fundamental British value,
making hereditary power unpalatable.
The monarchy is an old linchpin of the
traditional class system whose gradual
dismantling is welcomed by many.
Most Britons now tolerate the political
unpalatability of the monarchy because
they like the current Queen, but once
she is gone, they will be far less forgiving.
Furthermore, the institutions
constitutionally close to the monarchy
are under fire.
Reform of the House of Lords is an
urgent need: the chamber is growing
at a wildly unsustainable rate. Once
reform of this part of our constitution
begins, and visions of a more modern
and democratic system are drawn up,
the monarchy too will come under
scrutiny. Once hereditary titles, for
example, are abolished for Lords, the
innately hereditary monarchy will seem
even more out of place. As Britons
become increasingly secularist, the
50
Prince Charles in traditional Saudi dress for a sword dance with the Saudi
royal family in February this year.
current position of our head of state as
the Supreme Governor of the Church of
England looks evermore unsustainable.
While Prince Charles has hinted that
he could accept disestablishment of the
Church by saying he would prefer to
be known as ‘Defender of Faith’ rather
than ‘Defender of the Faith’, once the
constitutional role of the monarchy
is confronted, the monarchy comes
under an uncomfortable spotlight. The
monarchy’s ties to these unfavoured
institutions make its modernisation
very challenging.
While Britons may now see the monarchy
as a symbol of our proud heritage, and
a guarantee of national identity, it only
takes a generation or two for public
attitudes to reverse. One easily forgets
that only one hundred years ago, Britain
was a society which rejoiced at the onset
of war and universal suffrage was still
fourteen years away. British society
is increasingly cosmopolitan, moving
away from the kind of society easily
represented by one figure head.
On the other hand, as anti-political
sentiment grows in the UK, the
alternative to the monarchy looks
steadily less appealing. Any referendum
on the future of the monarchy is
realistically bound to present the only
alternative as an elected president.
People in Britain already resent the
influence of politicians in public life, so
would be unaccepting of the idea of a
political head of state. This aspect may
be surprisingly successful in staving
off republicanism for longer than
otherwise, but can do nothing to turn
the tide.
The monarchy may be successful and
popular now, but it will quickly begin
to seem irrelevant to the British public,
once the Queen has passed away. If it
can maintain relevance, it will be no
mean feat. The likelihood, however
appears to be the opposite. ƒ
Has urban re-
development
been a greater
success in the
US than the UK?
Cameron Ballard
Urban re-development is
a phenomenon which has
become more and more
popular on a global scale.
With the aim of improving the
efficiency of land-use in deprived urban
areas, urban re-development can bring
prosperity to areas where crime and
poor living standards ruined the lives of
the locals. In fact, it occasionally occurs
that areas of urban re-development
can exceed the rest of the city, and
can become a financial hub for trade
and investment. The closest, but
possibly most under-estimated example
of urban re-development is Canary
Wharf – arguably the current banking,
legal and media centre of London, if
not the UK. The shipping industry in
this area of London began to decline
and the ports were closed in 1980,
leading to the creation of the London
Docklands Development Corporation in
1981, which acted as a means for the
government to encourage and stimulate
redevelopment in the area.
While it is often difficult to make
comparisons between the US and the
UK, due to much larger economic and
physical size of the US, it is possible
to compare success on a smaller scale,
between two similar projects: The
Barbican Estate in London and The
Highline Project in New York.
During World War II, many parts of
London were devastated by bombing,
including the area on which the
Barbican Estate now stands. It was
not, however, until the 1960s that the
urban regeneration commenced. Nearly
ten years later, in 1969, the building
was completed, offering a home to four
thousand people, living in 2,014 flats.
Not only is the Barbican a residential
area, but it is also Europe’s largest multi-
arts and conference venue, costing only
£161 million to build; cheap considering
this is equivalent to £400 million today.
Even Her Majesty called the Estate “one
of the wonders of the modern world” - so
what’s the problem with it?
Well, the most striking issue with
the Barbican Estate is its Brutalist
architecture. It takes only a five-second
glancetoappreciatethatitisnotaspretty
as the Renaissance beauty of St Paul’s
Cathedral. While a book should not be
judged by its cover, some would argue
that the Estate has acted as a scar on the
City. Is this just a personal opinion? No,
in 2003 the Barbican Centre was voted
London’s ugliest building in a poll by
Grey London. Furthermore, it’s not just
the eyes, which hurt after looking at
the Barbican, but prices of nearby areas
have fallen. Due to the growing demand
for housing in London, which has caused
prices to rocket, the effect of this has
been minimised significantly. Although
it may look like it, the Barbican was
not built as social housing, meaning
that there was no intention of providing
affordable housing, which is in much
more demand today. A one-bedroom
apartment in the Barbican could cost
up to £850,000. So taking into account
the eyesore on the City, not providing
housing for low-income workers and
51
High Line Street

SOCIETY
costing the equivalent to £400 million,
has the Barbican Estate been a success?
compared to other projects?
Compared to some disastrous projects
such as the Hulme Crescents in
Manchester (which were demolished due
to their failure only nineteen years after
construction), there is some weighting to
support the advantages of the Barbican
Estate. On the contrary there have been
thousands, if not hundreds of thousands,
of projects and schemes which have
been much more successful, including
the High Line Project.
Although the High Line has not been
entirely completed (the third and final
phase is due to be finished by October),
the success of the project is already
evident. Originally a disused railway
track, the High Line is an elevated,
one-mile park in the bustling city of
Manhattan.
While the High Line is “non-economic
infrastructure”,itdoesarguablyimprove
the quality of life of those working and
living in this part of Manhattan, and has
been, arguably, a greater success than
the Barbican Estate.
The High Line cost close to $90 million
(£54 million) overall, nearly an eighth
of the cost of the Barbican Estate.
While the Barbican Estate became a
home for many workers in the area, the
High Line created $2 billion in private
investment surrounding the elevated
park. Considering that the High Line
occupies an area ten times the size of
the Barbican Estate – that’s good value
for money! While it is difficult to attach
a monetary value to happiness and social
benefits, it is most likely that people
will find it easier to relax, meaning
that productivity for local business
should rise. Furthermore, the influx of
tourists and visitors to the park mean
that firms and businesses should see a
rise in income, due to the multiplier
effect, hence the reason for such a large
sum of money being invested into the
surrounding area.

It would be inappropriate to make
assumptions on the national effectiveness
of urban regeneration in the US and the
UK, based solely on these two projects.
However, these projects took place in
potentially, the countries’ most iconic
and important cities, meaning that they
should give an accurate image of the
successfulness of urban regeneration
elsewhere.
For the mentioned reasons, the High
Line has been far more successful than
the Barbican Estate. However, that does
not mean to say that the Barbican Estate
has been a failure. Recently, the Barbican
Estate has been drastically improved,
with green areas being installed to
improve the visual aesthetics.
Despite the huge success of Canary
Wharf, the majority of urban re-
development, particularly in ex-
industrial cities such as Manchester
and Liverpool, has involved large tower
blocks, often referred to as “cradles of
crime”, due to the high levels of criminal
activity that they attract.
Since the concept of the High Line is
being copied elsewhere in the world,
along with other successful projects
throughout the United States, it must
be concluded that urban re-development
has been a greater success in the US
than the UK. ƒ
Should
Politicians ‘Do
God’?
Will Cowie
The issue of religion and
politics is certainly a
contentious one.
On one side of the debate the religious
peoples of the nation cry “Let us share
our faith through the public sphere”.
The atheists, à la Richard Dawkins,
denounce religion as dangerous, a
matter for autonomous individuals to
make up their minds about in their own
time, and certainly not an issue to be
discussed in Westminster. Indeed, in an
increasingly secular country, the urge to
stop any form of religion from entering
Westminster is strong. But I believe that
there is a path through which politics
and religion, like lion and lamb, could
lie together.
And indeed, the argument that all
ideas proposed in Parliament should be
discussed without any religious views
encroaching is a deceptively simple one.
It is very easy to think that, yes, our
country and Parliament would be far
fairer if the views of religious groups are
left aside; that in our liberal democracy
religion is not a matter worth bringing
into the picture. I believe, however, that
the secularisation of politics would be
undemocratic. We have to remember
that democracy is based upon consensus
– we give each man and woman in the
country a vote because we believe that
their views are worth hearing. To deprive
religious people of the ability to use that
vote in favour of religious politicians or
political parties and instead instruct
that politics be determined by some sort
of liberal morality and sense of debate
does not make much sense in the context
of the democratic nature of our country.
It’s very easy to adopt the view, which is
52
Barbican Lake Terrace, near
London.
extremely prevalent at the moment, that
religion is an ancient system, not fit for
today’s standards – but the fact that
over fifty percent of the UK population,
according to the 2011 Census, would
call themselves members of some kind
of organised religion is, in democratic
terms at least, testament against that
fact.
The issue with secularisation is that it
contains an underlying assumption that
the religious views which the people are
espousing are inherently wrong. Take
recent issues, like, say, the abortion
debate. Attempts to try to secularise
the debate – so that abortion should
be determined based solely on medical
advice and the idea of autonomy – does
not provide a greater basis for discussion
but is instead an underhand and subtle
victory of the liberal worldview,
because it rests upon the assumption
that the religious view is in fact wrong
and hence can be discarded. We cannot
discuss pressing issues to our nation
without considering religious views
and values, especially given how many
people do indeed live by such values.
The secularisation of such debates is
undemocratic; it deprives those religious
people of a political voice.
If we live in a truly democratic country,
then secularisation just does not work.
Depriving religious people the ability
to express their own religious opinions
through politics is a denial of the values
Britain stands for. ƒ
The Visible
2012 Legacy
James Acomb
Two years ago this summer,
it was London’s turn to put
on a show of sport.
The motto was ‘Inspire a Generation’
and was one of the main reasons that the
International Olympic Committee (IOC)
chose London rather than Paris. Jacques
Rogge, head of the IOC at the time of
London 2012 stated that London has
‘created a legacy blueprint for future
Games hosts’. The legacy included
making two million more people in
England become more active by the end
of 2012.
However in November 2013 the House of
Lords Select Committee on the Olympic
and Paralympic Legacy, reported
saying that although the games were an
‘outstanding success’, the legacy benefits
‘are in danger of faltering’. It believed
there was ‘little evidence’ of an increase
in the number of people participating
in sport and the economic benefits were
unevenly distributed. According to the
Government, the Olympics added almost
ten billion to the UK Economy, although
it created 31,000 new jobs, 15,000 were
in London and the South East and only
7,000 in the North East of England.
There are concerns that this legacy may
be faltering and claims in the report that
little has changed but figures published
in December 2013, by Sport England,
showed that 15.5 million people in
England play sport once a week every
week, which is an increase in 1.5 million
since 2004, when London won the bid.
However, is this really a high enough
increase for nearly ten years of work?
In April 2012, the London Legacy
Development Corporation (LLDC)
was established for the intention of
continuing the legacy programme.
The former Athletes Village has been
remodelled for domestic use and is now
called ‘East Village’ with half the homes
being bought by a Qatari Wealth Fund
who are investing over half a billion
pounds into the area. East Village has
2,818 homes and just under half are
affordable homes and has twenty-seven
acres of public space. The first residents
moved in November 2013.
In addition, there will be a new digital
quarter called ‘Here East’ which replaces
the Olympic Press and Broadcast Centre.
It will use the pre-existing connectivity
and facilities. BT Sport is situated
near “Here East” in an 80,000 square
foot production hub. Loughborough
University is planning a centre for a
thousand postgraduates. Hopefully the
area will be finished by 2018.
The presence of some big name
companies such as the Qatari Wealth
Fund has attracted other investment
into the area. In addition, £325 million
has been spent transforming the park
after the Games. Five thousand jobs were
involved in transforming park with the
encouraging businesses to grow, creating
more jobs. By 2030, it is anticipated
53

SOCIETY
that twenty thousand jobs will have
been created, and the spin-off from this
has been valued at £5 billion. London
is a changing city and it’s too early to
work out the benefits for fifteen years
in the future.
The Olympic Park was re-opened under
the new name ‘Queen Elizabeth Park’ to
which the public can enjoy 6.5 km of
waterways, three new schools , 8,000-
11,000 new homes, 257 acres of open
space, an Energy Centre, 1000 parking
spaces, together with two thousand
events hosted per year along with five
world class sporting arenas. The Lee
Valley Hockey and Tennis Centre in
the park will open by the end of June
2014. The new Queen Elizabeth Park
is 560 acres and Denis Hone, Chief
Executive of LLDC stated, ‘We have
created a magnificent park for London
with beautiful parklands’. The LLDC
estimate that by 2016, 9.3 million
people will visit the park per year.
The LLDC is also going to build five
new neighbourhoods and also improve
some existing areas around the park.
These areas are designed to complement
and extend the communities they are
already in. An example of one of the
neighbourhoods is Chobham Manor.
This project will be co-developed
between Taylor Wimpey and LLDC.
Seventy-five percent of the housing will
be family properties together with two
nurseries and a walk-in health centre.
By 2015 residents will start to move
into 828 homes, of which a third will be
affordable, and it will be completed by
2020 including a new school. However,
are there enough affordable homes?
Chobham Manor is only proposing
thirty-three percent and East Village
fifty percent. Price houses for London
have increased by twenty-nine percent
and so people on low to middle incomes
are finding it almost impossible to buy
a home in London and this will become
worse by the time they are completed.
Surely the answer as a requirement is
to have at least sixty percent of all new
neighbourhoods should be affordable
homes otherwise there is a real risk that
the area may become housing for the
rich.
There are other neighbourhood areas
such as East Wick, which will have 870
new homes and Sweetwater which will
have 650 homes. They will be situated
on western edge. Sweetwater will have
private gardens, communal green spaces
along the Lea Navigation whereas
East Wick will have a business and
commercial centre as it is situated near
to Here East. However, at the moment
no developers have signed contracts for
these projects. Does this mean that they
won’t be built by 2030? It does really
appear despite the massive demand for
homes in London, this part of the legacy
is proceeding at a slower rate than
people expected.
Inadditiontoworkingonneighbourhoods
inside the Park, the LLDC have worked
on projects around it. For example,
Glasshouse Gardens will be a £1.3
billion commercial and residential
scheme. It will be completed by 2017,
with up to three bedroom homes that
have views facing the Stadium, Orbit
and Aquatics Centre. In addition, a
new twenty-six-acre development called
Strand East will be built with 1,200
homes and a 350 bedroom hotel.
However, some of the housing will not be
complete until 2017 and some areas not
until 2030. Is this too long for people to
wait for new housing areas?
Finally, the LLDC are trying to make
the area as sustainable as possible by
2030 with key themes such as energy
conservation, waste management,
biodiversity and conservation, with
over two thousand trees being planted
and one hundred acres of bio-diverse
habitat.
Much has changed since 2012 although
there have been numerous press
complaintsthattheinitialtransformation
of the park and its re-opening took too
long and that whilst Chobham Manor
has been started and the homes are on
sale, much of the other neighbourhood
areas and housing redevelopment have
yet to be started. Given the demand
for housing, it is surprising that more
of the neighbourhoods have not been
developed and the LLDC must watch
carefully so that what appears to be a
slow momentum is not lost entirely.. ƒ
54
The London Olympic Swimming pool has recently opened to the public.
Is the UK a
Christian
country?
Jonathan French
In April 2014 David
Cameron said that the UK
is a Christian country and
that we should be “more
confident about our status
as a Christian country”.
These comments have sparked a new
debateonthistopicandpromptedaletter
to the Daily Telegraph by fifty prominent
individuals including authors, eminent
professors and scientists which said that
this characterisation of Britain ‘fosters
alienation and division in our society’.
There are plenty of statistics which
support this response. Church
attendances have fallen steadily with the
Church of England’s figures claiming
that 800,000 people would have
attended a service on a typical Sunday
in 2012, half the numbers attending in
1968. Furthermore, in the 2011 Census,
only twenty percent of people described
themselves as belonging to the Church
of England, down from forty percent in
1983.
Mr Cameron’s claim seems to be
weakened by the waning influence of
Christianity on the laws in the UK.
Laws relating to abortion and same-sex
marriage in particular seem to oppose
Christian teachings. These laws were
introduced despite vocal opposition from
religious groups. Laws in the UK are
increasingly moving away from what is
taught in the Bible and this can be seen
as evidence of the declining influence of
Christianity in this country.
Christianity also seems to have a
declining influence in society. It used to
be the norm that Sunday would be a day
of rest for the majority of the country
with most shops being closed. However,
this is not the case today: most shops
remain open and life seems to carry on
as normal. The increasing number of
places of worship for other faiths in the
UK would appear to symbolise how the
UK is drifting away from Christianity.
Immigration has resulted in a multitude
of different faiths in the UK. While
Christianity is still the largest faith by
number, there are now over 3.3 million
Muslims in the UK. This presents a clear
case that Mr Cameron was going too far
when he labelled the UK as a ‘Christian
country’.
However, this ignores the fact that there
is an established Church in this country.
Its bishops sit in the House of Lords;
the Queen is supreme governor of the
Church of England and holds the title
Defender of the Faith. The UK has a vast
Christian heritage and Christianity is
intertwined with the UK constitution.
Harry Cole, an agnostic journalist, wrote
in The Spectator that it is impossible
to deny the UK is a Christian country
without attempting to ‘rewrite history
and ignore our heritage’.
The fact that fifty-nine percent of
people in England and Wales described
themselves as Christian in the 2011
Census offers further confirmation that
the UK is still a Christian country. Even
though this was four million down on
the 2001 figure, it is still a majority
of UK residents who say that they are
Christian.
Yet the most convincing evidence that
the UK is a Christian country lies not in
how many people describe themselves as
Christian but in the role of Christianity
in society. School holidays around
Christmas and Easter are there for
Christian events.
Christian principles are taught in
nearly every school in the country.
Parables such as the Good Samaritan
which teach us to love our neighbours
are still taught and are the bedrock
of what people would describe as good
and morally upstanding behaviour. The
values taught by Christianity are valued
enormously in our society. Atheists and
Christians alike tend to aspire towards
the same values of selflessness and
doing good for others. This stems from
Christian beliefs.
Moreover, the fact that so many different
religions can be followed freely in the
UK displays the tolerance that is bred
from Christian beliefs. Christianity has
played a vital part in creating the free
society which we enjoy today.
In this letter to the Daily Telegraph, it
was claimed that “We are a plural society
with a range of perspectives, and we are
a largely non-religious society”. This
ignores the influence that Christianity
has had on the UK throughout history.
Christian beliefs have shaped the
country that we live in today so Mr
Cameron was justified in characterising
the UK as a ‘Christian country’. Even in
an age where tradition is unfashionable,
we should look to our roots and realise
that our identity and Christianity are
inextricably linked.
Our future being uncertain, now is
about the right time to recognise that
fact. ƒ
55

SOCIETY
Can pro gaming
be a real
career?
Sam Norman
The current prize pool for
the major competition,
known as The International
4, of popular computer
game ‘Dota 2’ stands at
over eight million dollars.
When shared out, the winning team, of
five people and a number of coaches,
could stand to get over $500,000 each.
This sum also does not include the
large amounts earned from potential
sponsorship, other competitions
throughout the year, merchandising,
online streaming of game play (George
“HotshotGG” Georgallidis, a League of
Legends player was earning over $2000
per day simply by streaming on Twitch),
Youtube channels and other potential
revenue streams. It would seem that
the winners of the Dota 2 International
4 will be in line for earnings higher
than ever before seen in the history of
pro gaming, more commonly known as
esports.
There is evidently a lot of money in pro
gaming. But that does not necessarily
mean it is a viable career choice. A
career needs some form of sustainability;
it needs to be something you can do for
your whole life. This sustainability does
not seem to exist within pro gaming.
A good gamer requires good reaction
speeds. However, at the age of thirty,
your reaction speeds begin to peak off.
When your reaction speeds begin to
slow, then you’re not as good at those
quick reactions, to the other player who
tosses a grenade as you turn the corner or
the enemy team who decide to surprise
attack and ‘gank’ you from behind the
fog of war. While the difference between
0.1 and 0.2 seconds may seem negligible
to most, for the pro gamer, this could
mean the difference between surviving
and diving away, with a pro-as-heck
escape, or dying and having to wait to
respawn while the enemy capture and
objective, take a tower or simply laugh
at your noobiness. These reaction speeds
are therefore crucial to the success of a
pro gamer; when they are gone, they
are going to be less successful, winning
fewer tournaments and thus earning less
money. The pro gamer thus has a limited
period in which they could make money
from their ability.
But this is the same for all sportsmen,
right? Yes, it is, but due to the size of
these sports, there are places for the
players to go – footballers can become
coaches, managers or any number of
positions within the sport. Pro gaming
is a much smaller industry, and while
there are coaches and managers, these
positions are few and far between. Many
gaming teams cannot afford to support
themselves, let alone managers, coaches,
PR managers, personal assistants,
merchandise managers or masseuses. The
opportunities that present themselves
once the pro gamer has gotten too old to
compete are limited, making it a career
with very few options once you have
stopped competing.
However, it is perhaps just speculation
to talk about what would happen
‘after’ the careers of these gamers has
ended as we simply do not have enough
evidence. The pro gaming scene has not
been around long and those that have
retired seem to have found other jobs:
many have gone on to be casters (such
as Troels “SyndereN” Nielsen of ‘Dota
2’ or Nick “Tasteless” Plott of ‘Starcraft
2’); many have gone on to own and
manage teams and many have gone into
other games- card games, mainly poker,
which attracts a large number of players
from the strategy game ‘Starcraft 2’.
It would seem that there are positions
available for these pro gamers once they
retire, even if it would seem like there
wouldn’t be.
We don’t know whether pro gaming
is a viable career- we can see when
the current generation of gamers have
retired, whether they can continue to
make good amounts of money, whether
it will be gg wp no re, or whether they
will make no money at all and turn into
noobs and scrublords. But with the rise
of pro gaming, especially in Eastern
Asia, I am almost certain that, one day,
it will be a career. In the meantime, I
would strongly suggest that you stick to
your studies - we’re a long way from the
ultimatum in 2014. ƒ
56
The problem
with the
Cannabis debate
Sam Lewis
420 blaze it: the rally call
of cannabis users all over
America.
Or so it may seem. When you picture a
cannabis user, it’s probably the classic
pot head, in his mother’s basement, hair
in a mess and wearing a t-shirt with a
vibrant print. It would seem that these
are the people who would care about the
marijuana debate; but this is untrue.
The deb ate over the legalization of
marijuana, especially in the USA, is
no longer for the service of a minority
of pot-smoking stoners but is instead a
grand debate that takes place as much
in the government buildings as in the
basements of matriarchal domiciles. I
would say that this is the major issue
with the modern marijuana debate.
Those adamantly for the legalization
and those adamantly opposed to it seem
to believe it is a big issue that is going
to affect everyone, no matter where they
live. In fact, this is not entirely true.
The debate over marijuana is not about
civil rights and liberties, like some
would make you to believe- it is about
whether or not a drug, with medicinal
benefits, should be allowed to be used
by the general public. Sure, maybe by
criminalizing it you deny people the
right to put into their body what they
want and give the state power over
everyone’s private life. But ultimately, all
those who debate the drug’s legalization
should be concerned with is whether or
not it is dangerous and whether or not to
punish those who possess it. The debate
over marijuana, it would seem, has lost
its theme and has turned into a grand
debate over civil liberties.
Therefore, I propose that the debate
should be refocused: talk only of the
drug and its effect and do not treat it
as a grand metaphor for civil liberties
because it is not, it is a plant- we don’t
have these debates over whether the
state should limit the possession of
deadly cacti. Marijuana, it has been
proven, is not as dangerous as first
thought and, in fact, has many medicinal
benefits. It would seem silly, therefore,
to deny people their right to this drug
in a medical capacity. While other drugs
may also be effective, marijuana is a
relatively cheap, natural source of pain
relief. So, in at least a medical capacity,
it would seem almost illogical to deny
the drug to those who would benefit
from it.
Punishment for possession is also a
ridiculous concept- in the USA, 40,000
people are arrested each year due to
marijuana possession. While this figure
may not be high, certainly not by the
USA’s standards, it still shows that
many are arrested for what is not in
the interests of the tax-payers funding
the police force and the prisons. The
resources could be better used on other
cases or even on better training for
police officers, which in the USA is
sorely needed. There are many options
that are more worthy than the arrest of
people for possession of marijuana. ƒ
57

MEDIA & SPORT
58
Sport and media are two aspects of modern life that we cannot escape. Every day there is one sporting
event or other and the media now cover all aspects of daily life from the sporting events of the days
before to significant events in the world such as democratic elections.
It is important that we take a deeper look at the media and the world of sport because all too often great injustices
and problems arise. Whether it is the phone hacking scandal of the News of The World, the internet providers of
America that wish to end Net Neutrality or the inner workings of FIFA, we find ourselves demanding answers.
The sport and the media seem to go hand in hand nowadays where every sporting action is picked apart by the
news reporters on television, online and in the newspapers. Due to the important role that these topics play in our
lives, such as what we know about in the goings on in the world comes from the news channels provide, I attach the
upmost importance to them both.
Chris Ranson, Section Editor
The changing
role of finance
in county
cricket
Jonathan French
From an outsider’s
perspective, it may seem
that the eighteen first-
class counties around the
country are only active
during the summer months
and sit dormant during
the winter, waiting for the
season to begin again.
However, this is not a viable business
plan.
Counties are by no means guaranteed
a profit on ticket sales alone. Crowds
for the County Championship are small
and show no signs of getting larger due
to most of the cricket being played
midweek when people are either at
work or at school. The only reliable
source of income from ticket sales is
the twenty-over competition, rebranded
for 2014 as the Natwest T20 Blast. As
always with cricket, the threat of rain
adds further financial uncertainty to
the mix with the potential for entire
matches to be washed out. If a lucrative
home T20 match were washed out, this
could result in the loss of over £50,000
in ticket sales due to refunded tickets
and the lost opportunity of selling food,
drinks and souvenirs at the ground.
The result is that hosting cricket matches
does not guarantee a profit for many
of the counties in the English game.
Richard Gould, the chief executive of
Surrey CCC, said that only around
£2 million of the club’s £26.5 million
turnover comes from the domestic
game. Surrey is very fortunate in that
it has a relatively large ground with a
capacity of 23,500 and hosts regular
international cricket, for which strong
ticket sales are a given.
Where does that other £24.5 million
come from? This is the area of finance
in county cricket that many casual
observers fail to appreciate. Surrey CCC
has a vast network of sponsors including
Kia, OCS, Octopus Investments and
Savills. The club regularly makes use
of its facilities by hosting events and
conferences. This is a reliable source of
revenue for many county cricket clubs
since the majority have the necessary
facilities to host corporate events.
Since the recession hit Britain in 2008,
county cricket clubs have been forced
to diversify the products that they offer.
Surrey CCC has arguably led the way
in operating in a financially sustainable
manner but that is very dependent
on its central London location and
the benefits that it brings such as the
excellent access.
Some other counties are not so fortunate
with their location and have had to find
other ways of generating revenue. Far
away from the bright lights of the London
and Surrey CCC is Northamptonshire
CCC. Its ground on Wantage Road is
one of the smallest on the county circuit
with a capacity of just 6,500. However,
it has made use of its land by hosting a
concert by Sir Elton John in 2013 which
was such a success for the club that they
are hosting another concert this year
where Sir Tom Jones will be performing.
These events are incredibly important
for small clubs like Northamptonshire
which do not host international cricket
and do not receive much from ticket
sales due to the small capacity of their
grounds.
Such is the onus on being able to host
corporate events and the like that
many counties have spent millions
on redeveloping their grounds so
that they have the facilities to attract
new customers. Lancashire CCC has
undertaken extensive redevelopment on
their Old Trafford ground for this reason
with the pavilion being redeveloped and
the construction of The Point, a striking
£12 million feature that can be used
for both cricket matches and corporate
functions.
The Point promises to reap huge
financial rewards for Lancashire
because it is a state-of-the-art facility
which can be used in many ways from
hosting conferences and events to simply
watching the cricket. In some sense, this
represents a commercialisation of the
sport in a way similar to football and the
major US Sports.
County cricket has undergone somewhat
of a revolution over the last fifteen or
so years with the advent of twenty-over
cricket. The sport is more professional
now than it ever has been. The off-field
activities of county cricket have become
ever more important in this period.
The first-class counties are now run as
businesses not just as cricket clubs. Off-
field activities are becoming ever more
important and no county wants to be
left behind. ƒ
59

MEDIA & SPORT
Dark days for
conventional
TV?
Jan Thilakawardana
Can you imagine a world
where TVs are no longer
needed?
Nowadays phones, tablets and iPods have
the power to display TV programmes, so
are we to conclude that the traditional,
cumbersome television set is redundant?
The television does provide a family
viewing experience inconvenient and
uncomfortable on tablets or phones. For
proof of the survival of the traditional
ritual of gathering to watch television,
one needs to look no further than the
World Cup. An estimated fifteen
million people watched England’s first
match, many of them at bars or pubs or
at home in large groups.
While young people turn away from
televisions to newer technologies, TVs
offer a very valuable familiarity for
older viewers with less technological
nous.
Web series developed on sites such
as Youtube have begun to rival
conventional television media, due to
improvements in picture quality, scripts
and acting. However, TV manufacturers
have adapted to this new phenomenon
by developing smart TVs which are able
to display web series. Furthermore,
the large display remains the most
immersive way to enjoy the web series.
The USA provides some of the best
TV programmes on the planet such as
Breaking Bad and The Walking Dead.
While American programmes take
weeks or months to be aired on British
television, they can be accessed online
by British viewers as soon as they are
released over the Atlantic, via platforms
such as Netflix. The American ISP,
Verizon, has even put in place a deal
with Netflix to increase WiFi speeds
four-fold in order to introduce 4K Ultra
HD so that viewers can experience the
best possible picture quality.
One modern phenomenon which
reinforces the need for a traditional
television set is ‘dual device’ viewing.
Younger viewers in particular are now
accessing social media via their tablets
and handsets at the same time as
watching a television programme. Thus,
viewers are able to instantly share their
reactions to the programme online.
The rise of television programmes on
devices other than the traditional screen
may seem to herald the end of the TV
as we know it, but the two forms of
viewing need not be incompatible. As
long as there is demand for comfortable,
immersive viewing, the tradition of telly
will never be switched off. ƒ
Why would you
host the World
Cup?
Chris Ranson
Host countries are left with
massive debt, while FIFA
laugh all the way to the
bank...
First of all, the millions of football
fans coming into the country, spending
their money on accommodation and
food, boost the economy. The Brazilian
economy will be boosted by $90 billion
according to Aldo Rebelo, the country’s
Minister of Sport. Another positive is
that the World Cup generates many jobs
both short and long term. Again, using
Brazil as an example, 3.6 million jobs
were apparently generated by the World
Cup. Of course, the excitement that
comes with hosting, arguably, the most
prestigious tournament in the world
gives it a powerful allure for prospective
host nations. Brazil hosts the World Cup
in 2014 and, as a nation notorious for its
love of a party one of the world’s biggest
footballing countries, surely Brazilians
are ecstatic to be hosting the World Cup.
However, there are many reasons why the
people of Brazil are not enthused; more
than one of those reasons is because of
FIFA.
FIFA have a full and comprehensive tax
exemption in the country that is hosting
the World Cup. This means that the host
country must agree to forgo potential
tax revenue, for the benefit of FIFA,
costing Brazil $250million this year.
In addition, since FIFA are a charitable
organisation, they hardly pay any
tax themselves in Switzerland, where
they are based, anyway. What is even
more shocking is that for a non-profit
organisation, they have an enormous
reserve fund of over $1 billion. When a
charitable, non-profit organisation has a
reserve of such a vast quantity, serious
questions must be asked.
FIFA argue that they leave much benefit
behind when the World Cup is over,
for example, new laws. In Brazil, in
2003, alcoholic drinks were banned
from stadiums due to the unusually
high death rate among fans, mostly
due to excessive alcohol consumption.
However, one of FIFA’s main sponsors,
Budweiser, produces beer, a product
which (and this should come as no
surprise) contains alcohol – so is surely
just as harmful as drinks of similar
60
alcoholic concentrations. FIFA did not
agree, wading into the matter to protect
their sponsor from the alcohol ban.
Despite the urges of the Health Minister
of Brazil, Brazil passed the ‘Budweiser
bill’ allowing the sale of Budweiser
within football arenas across Brazil
.
Finally, FIFA take most of the profits
of the World Cup with them when they
leave. At least $4 billion will come out of
Brazil as FIFA’s profits. Despite Brazil
paying for all the cost of the World Cup,
most of the money generated from it
leaves when FIFA leaves. With Brazil’s
projected total cost the World Cup
coming to around $14 billion, Brazil are
set to make a considerable loss. Even the
added infrastructure is not a bonus.
Brazil’s government spent $270 million
dollars on the stadium in Manaus, which
will host only four games across the
duration of the World Cup, including
the first England game. There is no
local club close enough to fill it after
the World Cup as the town of Manaus is
almost inaccessible by car. This stadium
is a serious eye-sore for the town of
Manaus and will serve as a reminder of
the amount of money wasted by hosting
the World Cup.
With staggering costs and very little
benefit, once the FIFA whirlwind has
finished dipping its hand into the
profits, the continued desire of many
countries to host the World Cup is a
mystery to me. ƒ
The Changing
Fortunes of
Manchester
United
Jan Thilakawardana
The Red Devils just
completed one of their
worst seasons in living
memory - will their luck
change?
Simply put, Manchester United was a
club in turmoil (by their lofty standards)
at the end of the 2013/14 season. No
official manager, no marquee signing
for the season and most importantly
no European foot-ball. Now most clubs
can afford an off season; especially if
they avoid relegation. Not Manchester
United. The famous Red Devils were
the first sports team to be valued at
over $3 billion by Forbes (January
2013) and have traditionally been a
very profitable enterprise. Nike has a
twelve-year merchandise sponsorship
which is valued at £303 million along
with General Motors’s shirt sponsorship
which is in place from 2014-2021
valued at $559 million. The pressure
placed on the club is enormous: without
success and trophies, all this investment
will surely vanish.
The squad which won the title in 2013
was generally regarded as a squad in
transition. The team contained players
who were reaching the end of their
careers, such as Rio Ferdinand, along
with youngsters who possessed little
match experience, such as Adnan
Januzaj. Fast-forward twelve months
and the club endured one of the worst
seasons in living memory; it was the
first time Manchester United had not
finished in the top three since 1990.
With the benefit of hindsight, many
pundits now recognise that the summer
of 2013 offered the perfect chance to
rebuild and strengthen the squad, which
was sadly missed.
Manchester United had created an
ideal situation for the summer of 2013:
Premier League Winners, European
football secured and money to spend.
Then was the best possible opportunity
to go out and buy two or three world
class players. Fabregas was courted with
three bids which resulted in nothing
(ironically he will be playing next season
for Chelsea, who secured his services for
a deal cheaper than United’s highest
bid by £10 million). By deadline day,
the club still had secured no world-class
players. While Arsenal had Ozil secured
and Willian had been added to the
Chelsea ranks, Moyes bought Fellaini
for £27.5million – a sum later revealed
to be higher than his expired buy out
close. This addition to the squad turned
out to be futile: Fellaini did not score
in the Premier League. Although Juan
Mata was a player of real class (to add
to the growing crowd of number-tens at
Manchester United), his inflated price
tag of £37.1 million was considered more
beneficial to Chelsea than Manchester
United.
The Premier League has just witnessed
one of the best title races ever. The
money of Manchester City combined
with Everton’s spirit of adventure and
the youth of Southampton created even
contests at both the top and bottom of
the table this year. Manchester United
must step up their game to ensure they
remain competitive next season. One
part of the agenda which has fortunately
61

MEDIA & SPORT
now been sorted is the manager.
David Moyes had only one piece
of silverware to show for his whole
managerial career: the Division Two title
with Preston. Many believe that Moyes
was always the wrong appointment due
to the trophy-per-season expectation
of the demanding Manchester United
fans and board, but Sir Alex Ferguson’s
wishes could not have been ignored.
Moyes’s future at the club was already
placed under the huge weight of the
expectation that he could emulate
Ferguson’s, even in a small way. Moyes’s
downfall was his inability to handle the
pressure of leading a big-name club
such as Manchester United, perfectly
illustrated by his panic buy of Fellaini
last summer. The Manchester United
board has learnt from its mistakes and
now Louis van Gaal will be leading the
Manchester based club next season.
The Dutchman has proven himself as a
winner throughout Europe, leading huge
clubs such as Barcelona and Bayern
Munich. The Dutch national side has
been producing outstanding football
under his leadership.
Qualifying to play European football
in the 2015/16 season is an achievable
target for Manchester United. The
opportunity to play in European
football is normally very attractive
to prospective players, but due to the
team’s failure to qualify last season to
play in Europe in 2014/15, world-class
players for next season will have to be
attracted by large salaries alone. A new
back four, a midfield powerhouse and a
winger are the main holes to fill for the
squad over the summer. I have faith that
Van Gaal will spend wisely. There is no
doubt that the likes of Manchester City,
Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal and Everton
will strengthen even further over the
summer but under Van Gaal, United has
a bright future and a chance to right the
wrongs of the past year for themselves
and the fans. ƒ
Football: more
than just a
sport?
Alex Goodchild
Hidden just off a little
passageway on the scenic
island of Madeira lies a
certain place of divinity.
The Portuguese are historically Roman
Catholic, yet, no conventional god is
worshipped here. It is Funchal’s CR7
Museum, a shrine to Cristiano Ronaldo,
a footballing icon. No biblical text is
needed; Ronaldo’s glittering history
narrates itself in more than 150
displayed trophies and medals, twenty-
six signed hat-trick balls and two Ballon
d’Or awards. A life-sized waxwork and
several images reveal how Ronaldo is
just one example of how football has
become increasingly devotional. But
whether this is a religious symbol more
than a simple show of affection leads one
to examine whether football is indeed a
religion.
There is little doubt that Ronaldo’s
compatriots believe in him as an icon.
On this issue, the museum’s curator,
Nuno Mendes, declared, “He is Portugal’s
main ambassador… The image of the
country is reflected in him.” Certainly
football is a significant aspect of life in
Portugal but there is greater evidence
that it is followed routinely around the
world.
This summer, Brazil plays host to
the FIFA World Cup and, as such,
many fans have flocked to the football
‘Mecca’ of the World. City squares are
brimming with football fans and no less
by Americans. Remarkably, 200,000
match tickets were bought in the US,
which comes as some surprise given
that ‘soccer’ is still some way behind
baseball, American football and others
in terms of popularity. More incredible
still is that 75% of English season-ticket
holders would sooner change religion
than the team they support, according
to a poll conducted on the eve of Easter
by the makers of Warren United, an
animated sitcom about a fervent football
fan.
In an increasingly secular age, can
football therefore be considered an
adequate replacement for traditional
religion? As Diego Maradona said,
“Football isn’t a game or a sport, it’s
a religion.” Is convening to the new
churches in the form of stadia to attend
fixtures not a form of group devotion?
There’s communal singing in the form
of football chants, and a faithful crowd
always awaits, hopefully, the coming
of every new manager or star signing.
Posters and graffiti often adorn the
streets of Barcelona and Argentina
bearing the face of their one true hero:
Lionel Messi. And there is compelling
evidence that football can be a substitute
for religion. Songs of Praise, the most
watched religious programme on British
TV, attracts barely three million viewers,
just a quarter of what can be reached on
a televised match by Sky Sports.
Despite this, Italian film director Pier
Paulo Pasolini’s claim that ‘football is
the last sacred ritual of our time’ seems
62
a little exaggerated. Not always do you
see in a football fan the same unwavering
faith that you do in religion and even
if Neymar may now be the patron saint
of Brazil, should he not perform to the
lofty expectations, he could face jeers.
Besides, whilst some players are idols,
‘sacred’ could not be more inaccurate
when describing Uruguayan Luis
Suárez who has just recently bitten a
third victim to add to equally heinous
offences of racism.
Yet part of the reason that football can
be viewed in a holy light is because
religion played a formative role in the
rise of football in this country. In fact, a
quarter of league teams in England trace
their origins to church sides, formed in
the late 19th century era of “muscular
Christianity”, including Everton, Aston
Villa, Fulham, Southampton, Bolton
and Wolves. There are still Christian
leagues today, while professional clubs
nowadays have club chaplains. This
then sheds light on why the idea of
switching football clubs seems to true
fans sacrilege. “Soccer isn’t the same
as Buddhism”, concedes Franklin Foer,
author of How Soccer Explains the
World, “but it is often more deeply felt
than religion, and just as much a part of
the community’s fabric, a repository of
traditions.”
The backlash of supporters against
the commercialisation of football in
the developed world can be seen as an
illustration of the principle that football
means more to people than mere sport.
In the UK, where investors have been
drawn to huge profits in merchandising
and ticket sales, the largest clubs, led
by Manchester United, are leading
a comeback. Fans relish fighting off
commercial interests for the sake of
protecting the beautiful game. As
money becomes ever more important,
and the fans become abstracted from
the astronomical sums paid to players
for licenscing an playing, there will be
a global revolution. Rather akin to the
reaction of Martin Luther or Desiderus
Erasmus to the decadence in Rome, the
fans will no longer be able to tolerate the
excessive monetisation of the sport as if
it were a commodity.
However, Football should not be
considered a religion but it is still
vitally important to sections of society
in the same way as faith is for others.
Played well, football is an art that has
proved a great entertainment and it
fills many lives with the passion of
despair and euphoria. Perhaps it is Eric
Cantona who most accurately defines
the life of a football aficionado with this
observation: ‘You can change your wife,
your politics, your religion… but never,
never, can you change your favourite
football team.’ In that sense, football
might even be more than a mere religion
after all. The football infection hasn’t
yet reached its furthest extent, It won’t
be long before it does. ƒ
63

Ricardian magazine final internet

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to Ricardian magazine final internet

Ricardian magazine final internet