'This House' - Political Play by James Graham

by Hannah Gent

The National Theatre Play 'This House' by James Graham

"1974. The UK faces economic crisis and a hung parliament. In a culture hostile to cooperation, it’s a period when votes are won or lost by one, when there are fist fights in the bars and when sick MPs are carried through the lobby to register their vote"

'This House' is set between 1974 and 1979, showing the political climate of the Harold Wilson and James Callaghan governments. The Labour Party started out as a minority government in 1974  and only had the majority by a few votes in the second election of that year. Therefore, every vote counted for the Labour Party as they had to fight to pass legislation. In order to do this they had to win over as many of the ‘odds and sods’ as possible. These 'odds and sods' were the MPs from minority parties such as the liberals. With an extremely slim majority the Labour Party need every other vote possible as the vote can be won or lost by just one.

Eventually, every MP is required to be present in Parliament to avoid losing a vote of No Confidence. However, this results in MPs who are sick and unable to attend being forced to even though their health is in danger. A 'tradition' that the two parties often relate to in this play is pairing. This occurs when an MP from one party is unable to attend so the other party take one of their MPs out of the vote to make the numbers even and the vote fair. This 'tradition' does get questioned as these single votes can make such a difference and at one point it is discarded which means that the two parties (the Labour Party in particular) have to do everything in their power to make sure all of their MPs are present to win, or at least draw, the vote.



I went to see this play a few weeks ago with not much previous knowledge of politics around this time. However, leaving the theatre I realised how much I had actually understood from this play and the problems that occur with these voting systems and the 'traditions' within. It was an excellent play that would suit a variety of audiences with humour and an excellent cast. Personally, I really liked the on-stage seating (the first three rows were turned into the green benches of the House of Commons) as it gave the crowded and busy atmosphere of all the activity in Parliament.

Life of a Legend: the Iron Lady

by Shireen Avasthi

"Being powerful is like being a lady: if you have to tell people you are, you aren't." - Margaret Thatcher

There are three types of people in the world: people who are for Margaret Hilda Thatcher, Baroness, LG OM PC FRS; people who are against her; and people who are on the fence regarding their opinion of the Iron Lady. Be that as it may, one thing we can all be sure of is that she was a legend whom the world will remember for many years to come.

"Defeat? I do not recognise the meaning of the word."   

          Thatcher was the longest serving British Prime Minister during the 20th century as well as the first and only female to have held office. A Soviet journalist presented her with the nickname "Iron Lady" because of "her uncompromising policies and leadership style."  In fact, Thatcher's time in office was so ground-breaking that her conviction politics, economic and social policies, and political style became commonly known as "Thatcherism."     

"I love argument. I love debate. I don't expect anyone just to sit there and agree with me - that's not their job." 

Despite the ongoing world recession in 1981, Thatcher and Chancellor Geoffrey Howe managed to raise taxes and cut government spending, therefore allowing cuts in interest rates. Economic revival began soon after this. In 1982 Thatcher led Britain to military success regarding Argentina's invasion of Falkland Islands. The Iron Lady continued her winning streak in 1983 due to her re-election in the landslide election.

Easter Reading List

by Viva Avasthi

By the end of this holiday, despite the huge pile of revision I need to get through, here's what I plan to have read:

Books 

• The State We're In by Will Hutton
• The Problems of Philosophy by Bertrand Russell ✔
• Marx: The Key Ideas by Gill Hands (Finish off) ✔
• The Undercover Economist by Tim Harford (Finish off)

Essays/Articles

• Dilemmas of an Economic Theorist by Ariel Rubinstein
• Quality of Life: India vs. China by Amartya Sen ✔
• The Tragedy of the European Union and How to Resolve It by George Soros ✔

The Economist: Special Reports

• Europe and its currency: Staring into the abyss  ✔
• World economy: For richer, for poorer
• Emerging Africa: A hopeful continent ✔

I'll put a tick (✔) next to each text after I have finished reading it. Links have been provided to all of these texts so that if you're interested you can read them too. The books need to be bought or loaned if you wish to read those, but the other texts can be read free of charge by following the links. Enjoy!

Shrinking economy; Increasing waistlines

By Krupa Popat

Britain’s economy is shrinking but  its health problems are certainly not.

With 25.1% of women obese and 32.3% of women overweight, 24% of men obese and a staggering 42% of men overweight, weight problems are amongst the highest costs for the government to fund through the NHS.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, statistics show that between the years of 2006 – 2010 (during some of the hardest times due to the onset of the recession), the most obese were those who had the lowest income. This could be linked to the fact that unemployment was on the rise. As Marx’s theory said, “the reserve army of labour fight amongst themselves for scarce jobs at lower and lower wages”.  Inflation increasing didn't help, as people who are on job seekers allowance or have low disposable income cannot afford the rocket prices of food, which is inelastic. Many people are sacrificing being healthy because they can only eat what they can afford, which is more fatty foods.

 “Obesity is associated with a range of health problems including type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cancer. The resulting NHS costs attributable to overweight and obesity are projected to reach £9.7 billion by 2050, with wider costs to society estimated to reach £49.9 billion per year (Foresight 2007). These factors combine to make the prevention of obesity a major public health challenge.” http://www.noo.org.uk/slide_sets

As the government is cutting back on spending to save money, it seems like they’re spending just as much because of it…

Let me know what you think and find out more at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/learningzone/clips/health-problems-facing-the-uk/5078.html

Should Charities Replace the Welfare State?

by David Rovick

The Russian philopsopher, Ayn Rand

Ayn Rand was a Russian Philosopher born in 1905. She is probably most famous for writing the novel ‘When Atlas Shrugged’ and developing a philosophy called Objectivism, a philosophy supposedly based on reason, self-esteem or selfishness, and fundamental human rights among other things. I am a huge fan of Ayn Rand and her ideas, but enough about her for now at least.

I will first attempt to answer the question: should charities replace the welfare state, using objectivist reasoning. First of all I will derive the answer to why welfare states are morally wrong almost all of the time.

To do this I will derive a philosophy using nothing but reason and logic, starting with a ‘clean slate’ of thought, and first ask what the purpose of philosophy, or moral code, or morality (I will use the terms interchangeably) should fulfil. I think we can all agree that the purpose of a human being should be to further and maintain human life, and therefore human life is the highest moral standard. Animals do it in nature, acting consistently in a way that will sustain and further life, indeed it is necessary for their survival, for their life. In the same way, a human’s morality must be what allows him to further and sustain his own life, so that he can live as joyful and fulfilling a life as possible and this is to be the purpose of our morality. What’s more, man’s morality must fulfil its purpose when applied consistently, for what good is a morality if it can only achieve its purpose when inconsistently applied, or even worse (and more commonly unfortunately when not applied at all?

Next I will make the observation that we are each observable individuals; that is we own our bodies, our minds and ourselves insofar as we are the ultimate deciders of our own thoughts and actions. This is evident in the fact that humans have free will, which is the ability to act and think independently, thusly the ability to use reason if we choose too in acting and thinking independently. And because we have given ourselves the purpose of using reason in order to further and sustain human life, it is morally right to use it, and morally wrong to not.

Are Human Rights Under Fire...Literally?

by Eyrie Clark

A Reaper Drone
Credit to The Guardian

A 16-year-old boy was murdered. He never did anything wrong. He never even saw his death coming. The crime was his father's, and he was executed because of association even after his father had been killed. Do you think this is wrong? It's already happened.

As technology progresses, humans find more and more ways to use such technology to satisfy their agenda - which usually means someone has to die.

And, sadly, that is the case now, as the public has recently found out about a secret government program, that was apparently so top-secret that former White House Press Secretary Gibbs was ordered to deny its existence.

This alone is obviously VERY alarming. Any program the government tries so hard to keep a secret obviously spells bad news.What is so bad that they're afraid of their own citizens knowing of its existence?

Well, that program is the 'Drone' program. It is a billion-dollar program to create and pilot unmanned, armed drones to use as scouts and, when needed, the middleman who carries out the sentence for the executioner. Someone in Florida could press a button and and blow up a wedding in the middle-east, all in real time.

Death and Capitalism at Oxford Think Week

by Viva Avasthi

On Monday I attended a Think Week event entitled 'Death and Capitalism' which has been given the following description by its organisers:

Here I am with Mr Hutton

Death is a given. We will all die at some point. When you strip away all the emotion, all the psychology, all the cultural impacts, is there something about death, something very practical, that we are missing out on? Death, it turns out, is also an opportunity. It is inextricably linked to wealth and property. So, as we strive to build a stronger, more equitable and more prosperous society, what opportunities does death afford us?

I went primarily to see the main speaker, Mr Will Hutton, who is currently Principal of Hertford College, Oxford and is a prominent Keynesian economist. During a discussion with my economics teacher where I was wondering whether there are any modern equivalents to Keynes (that is, whether there are any prominent economists today who would adapt their ideas and thoughts to suit the economic problems facing them, rather than holding on desperately to fixed ideologies), she mentioned Will Hutton and Amartya Sen. Although I had heard of Amartya Sen and knew that he specialises in development economics, I had not heard of Will Hutton. For this reason, when I found that Mr Hutton would be speaking at an event at Oxford, I was immensely excited and made sure to attend so that I could find out about his ideas and meet him in person.

In his speech, Mr Hutton argued the case for increasing rates of inheritance tax as well as ensuring that the loopholes currently used by the wealthy are closed. In starting his speech by mentioning that the 5-7% levee the Romans used to place on young men from wealthy families was just one of many examples of inheritance tax throughout history, he argued that humans have always been determined to create equality by rewarding people according to the amount of effort they put into their work. He pointed out that in observing this idea, the young Marx was, in fact, wiser than the old Marx to some extent, because the young Marx understood that everybody being paid equally no matter how hard they work is fundamentally against human nature. This aspect was particularly interesting for me as I have just finished reading a book on Marx's ideas, and will be publishing a relevant article very soon.

And so it Spins

by Eyrie Clark

Thanks to Matt Wuerker and the Cartoonist Group.

   When talking about politics, politicians, and especially political corruption, you often hear the term 'Revolving Door' come up. 'They are just a part of the revolving door,' or 'It's all just one big revolving door'. But what does that even mean?

   Well, I ask you to look to the illustration to your right in this article and skim through it. It is a vast simplification of the process, but nonetheless, it is still incredibly accurate. In this article, we will be picking through the picture, as well as examining a few politicians as examples.

   But first, like I started this article: what is the 'Revolving door'? Basically, the theory of it is that business men who decide they are not making enough money go into politics. You will notice step one; 'Take a bunch of corporate cash. Buy a seat in congress!' This step is accurate because, time and time again, it has been shown that the campaigns that spend tons of money tend to win elections. Think of how Mitt Romney won the Republican Nomination. Not because he was better policy-wise than anyone else, but he was better-funded. But why? Politicians may be paid an OK amount if you were an average citizen, but it comes with the extra cost of having to maintain two residences: one in the nation's capital, and one somewhere in their constituency.

 

Osborne to Re-set Banking System

by Karina Shooter

Photo courtesy of www.guardian.co.uk and Andy Rain/EPA

Today at JP Morgan, George Osborne announced that 2013 would be “the year we re-set our banking system”. He is forcing big banks to ring-fence their riskier investment banking operations from their retail operations, threatening that those banks which fail to comply will be separated completely.

But what does ‘ring-fencing’ mean? At the moment the investment banking division of big banks uses money from their high street operations (i.e. the money that we put into our current accounts)  to fund their riskier investments. This is what happened during the financial crisis of 2007, which meant that the government was forced to bail out banks with tens of billions of the tax payers’ money, otherwise the money which people had saved in high street banks would have been lost. In the new system, investment divisions will have to have enough money in their own accounts to fund riskier investment strategies, therefore they will put the taxpayer and the economy in a much less dangerous position.

Just Google It...

by Karina Shooter

How Google searches can predict economic indicators and give us an accurate picture of today’s economy

Up until recently, Central banks have only used official data when calculating and predicting economic indicators such as unemployment, housing starts and consumer confidence.  However official data is published a significant time after it has been collected (usually at least a month) which means that bankers found it difficult to calculate up-to-date predictions. How could bankers determine the present and future state of the economy, using figures that were only a reflection of the past? As Brynjolfsson, a professor at MIT, said “When central bankers were looking at traditional data, they were essentially looking out the rear-view mirror.”

However research has emerged which suggests that by analysing Google searches, we can obtain a clear picture of today’s economy as well as being able to accurately predict future cycles. For example, when trying to estimate unemployment figures, researchers found that by calculating the proportion of Google searches which contained key words such as “JSA” (short for jobseeker’s allowance), “jobs” and even “solitaire”, they could accurately calculate figures that almost exactly matched the official data when it was published weeks later.