o lO \ C 1 __J cvi Comment: Rethinfcmg Fage 7 drags poliqr Rawell 1 MICHAElMfiS TERM MMESTSSINSIBE The Beaver 26 October 2010 Newspaper of the London School of Economics Students' Union thebeaveronline.co.uk LSE Council moots privatisation VivekKotecha The LSE's highest decision-making body has recently considered privatising the School, the Beaver has learned. The benefits and costs of privatisation were discussed at a recent meeting of the LSE Council. The discussion formed part of a wider consideration on the financial strategy on the School's future, which is taking place at present. Comparisons have been made between the financial strategy of the LSE remaining as a charity in receipt of government funding, and its financial strategy were it to become a private university. The details are not yet public, but if the School became a for-profit private university, it could charge unlimited tuition fees and decline to accept government quotas on accepting students from poorer backgrounds. Furthermore, those choosing to study at a private university are not automatically eligible for government loans or bursaries to help cover their fees. At present, public status protects many of the School's services, including several operating below market prices and sometimes even below cost: widening participation schemes, the provision of scholarships, residences, and the nursery are four such examples. Public events and the Library are highlighted as being costly services which the School is obliged to provide as part of its remit as a government-funded charity. It is public information that in its current state none of the surpluses (profits) of the LSE are distributed; instead, they must be reinvested back into the School's operations. As a private institution the LSE would have more freedom to use its profits as desired and would not be obliged to invest any surpluses back into teaching and other educational services. This would be particularly relevant to the LSE given that it has for many years been running surpluses unlike those of its competitors. A privatised LSE could also lift current caps on student enrolment numbers and expand its campus at a much faster rate, the review suggests. Currently, the School is at the upper limit of its quota after many years of growth. A newly privatised LSE would be able to expand its population and this could explain the recent purchases of new buildings around Lincoln's Inn Fields by the School. The Review notes that the current nature of universities means that takeovers or mergers are difficiJt, and how in its current state there is not much benefit to growth. In previous years there has been discontent among students about the rapid expansion of the LSE, with some complaining that it has lowered teaching standards. At his appearance at UGM last Michaelmas Term, the Director, Sir Howard Davies, admitted that the School had now reached the limits of its possible expansion, and that this growth had come at the expense of optimum classroom environments. The main drawback to privatisation would be the loss of direct government Petei" Sutherland, Chair of the LSE Council funding for UK and EU students, the document adds. Even with the proposals of the Browne Review, many elite UK universities fear that the rise in tuition fees proposed by Lord Browne would not be enough to compensate for the 40% cut in the university teaching budget announced in the coalition govetnment's Comprehensive Spending Review last Wednesday. As a private university these predicted losses could be averted at the expense of students with higher tuition fees and fewer bursaries. At present, the University of Buckingham, which is one of the only privately fimded universities in the UK, still participates in important ratings such as the QAA, NSS and HESA. Currently home undergraduate fees for the university are around £17,000 for the whole course. In addition, students are eligible for student loans and bursaries from the government. An arrangement similar to that of the University of Buckingham would remove some of the School's own fears around privatisation. David Willetts, the Universities Minister, has previously signalled his desire for more private universities in the UK with the recent granting of" University College" status to BPP business and law colleges. LSE Director Howard Davies has sought to discount the possibility of privatisation, commenting: "I have so far seen no arguments which convince me that,tlie School and its students would be better off as a result of 'going private'." The School has separately released a statement, which asserts: "It is sensible to survey'the financial landscape in its entirety to understand the position of the sector as a whole. But it would be entirely wrong to isolate any part of that survey and portray what is background information as a preferred course of action". Attempts at privatisation have met with opposition from the University and College Union (UCU) which found that 96% of professors are against private universities and many believe that they are a threat to academic standards. The head of the UCU, Sally Hunt, said: "In a world where young people are being locked out of the higher education system by slashes to government funding, our legitimate concern is that UK students will fall prey to the kind of mis-selling and profiteering scandals currently rocking the for-profit university sector in the United States." The LSE is not the only university thought to be considering privatisation, with reports this month that the University of Cambridge may pursue this course of action. Remarks were made last year by the previous Rector of Imperial College London, Sir Roy Anderson, who advocated that five of the most elite UK universities (LSE, Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial and UCL) go private to compete with the US Ivy League universities. Sheerman's remarks promptecj a backlash against him from many Higher Education stakehold- Annual Fund rosy in spite of cuts threat Lauren Fedor Nicola Alexander The LSE Annual Fund has announced that it is adequately prepared for the severe cuts expected to hit Higher Education fiindirig. The Annual Fund, which raises unrestricted funding via private donations, delivered a gloving bill of health regarding the School's finances, which are expected to face a 33 per cent reduction in government fiinding from next year. According to the latest report released by the School's Office of Development and Alumni Relations (ODAR), the Annual Fund raised £782,511 in donations for the most recent financial year with 2,944 individual contributions. This record sum provides "support projects that would otherwise not receive financial backing", according to the report. As such, that total climbed to £1,043,348 with support from a government-led matched funding scheme, which is set to end next year. The three-year, £200 million initiative, conceived by the Blair Government in August 2008, supports all Higher Education institutions and directly-fimded Further Education colleges in England. The project pledged to match evety £3 pf private donations made to the LSE with £1 of government fiinding, and it has in general dramatically boosted the financial support available to universities. The LSE has greatly benefited from the scheme and is estimated to have earned over £600,000 in the past two years. If previous gains are sustained, in the long-term the LSE could have earned up to £1 million in extra fimding from the scheme. However, these additional government contributions will end when the three-year programme expires with the financial year ending 31 July 2011. Last week, Joanna Motion, Vice-President of International Operations at the Council for Advancement and Support of Education Europe, stated that the recently-announced slashes in public spending, as well as the recommendations of the Browne Review, will "mean unprecedented challenges for universities' finances." Ms Motion urged the government to "deliver clarity' on whether the matched-funding scheme could continue beyond 2011 - neither the Treasury's spending review nor Lord Brovrae's findings mention the scheme. But LSE leaders said they have long understood that the matched fiinding scheme was a three-year initiative. A statement from the LSE's Press Office commented: "We have long known that matched fiinding will end in 2011 and, like other charitable bodies, wiU have to develop other ways of appealing for this type of support. We are certainly stressing to supporters that this is the final year in which we can take advantage of matched funding." The LSE Annual Fund website, as well as other ODAR materials, remind donors that the 2010-2011 year marks their last opportunity to take advantage of the matched fimding scheme. Sl% Continues onpage3 The Beaver 1 26 October 2010 . ditoirial Board Executive Editor SachinPatel editor@thebeaveronline.co.uk . Managing Editor Calnm Young nianag^ng(a) thebeaveronline.co.uk News Editors Nicola Alexander VivekKotecha new8(i)thebeaveronline.co.uk Comment Editor Nathan Briant comment(a)thebeaveronline.co.uk Features Editors Marion Koob Oliver Wiseman features@thebeaveronline.co.uk Social Editor MehekZa£ir social(a) thebeaveronline.co.uk Sport Editors Matthew Box Rosie Boyle sports@thebeaveronline.co.uk PartB Editor Ahmed Peerbux Jonathan Storqr partb@thebeaveronline.co.uk Photo Editor Duncan McKenna photo@thebeaveronline.co.uk Design Editor AhmedAlani de8ign@thebeaveronHne.co.uk Web Editor Alexander Young web@thebeaveronline.co.uk Collective Chw Benedict Sarhangian collective@thebeaveronline.co.uk The Beaver would like to thank the LSE students vt^o contributed to this issue. The Beaver is published by the London School of Economics' Students' Union, East Building, Houghton Street, WC2A 2AE. Printed at Guardian Print Centre, Rick Roberts Way, Stratford, London E15 2GN. The Beaver is printed on 100% recycled paper. In 2006, reveled paper made up 79% of UK newspaper raw materials. Please recycle your copy. Get involved in The Beaver! www.tinyurl.com/2010beaver 02079556705 East Building LSE Students' Union London WC2A 2AE Collective I The Beaver Established in 1949 Issue No. 732 Telephone: 0207 955 6705 Email: editor(a)thebeaveronline.co.uk Privately womed This week, the Beaver has leamt of secret discussions that have taken place between individuals belonging to the highest echelons of the School, regarding a possible privatisation of this institution. That these murmurings occurred over a month ago is doubly worrying - first, because this paper has already seen the dire side-effects of proposing policy well before the facts are in place (see our previous analysis of the Freeze the Fees campaign); second, because we do not know the fidl consequences of the discussion in question, viz., what mechanisms have been set in motion in the intervening period of time. Though the School is right to pursue a number of different options following the publication of the Browne Review's findings, this paper strongly urges caution in the case of privatisation. Our feelings on fees-freezing are well-known; additionally, the deleterious consequences of the Comprehensive Spending Review and government flmding cuts are plain to see (see News, page 4). However, we do not believe that privatisation is the solution to these problems. There are two promi- nent examples of private universities in this country: the first, the University of Buckingham, is in our estimation an insignificant dust-speck on the surface of Higher Education institutions, while the second, the BPP, intends to use its newly-awarded powers to focus on professional qualification-centric degree programmes, such as Law, Accounting, and Business Studies. The LSE is not the University of Buckingham, and it is certainly not the BPP. It is a constituent member of the Russell Group, and as such, it must continue to function as a research-led institution. This newspaper does not see private universities as suitable vehicles for such a focus, and consequently, would have serious doubts over the merits of the School privatising. Of course, we understand that the discussion in question was merely an initial foray into the dark: the strategy document we refer to simply laid out the facts, and described the financial situation at the aforementioned private institutions. Nonetheless, we would sleep easier if this possibility was nipped in the bud without attracting furAer interest or support. If the LSE were to privatise, virtu- ally every shred of belief that we have in the School's progressive intentions would disintegrate. In our interview with Sir Howard Davies in last week's issue, the Director made telling admissions as to the realities of access and widening participation, and suggested that reform over fees would occur pari passu with an open debate on how best to target those who dare not even apply to the LSE, for fear of financial endan-germent. At a stroke, we fear privatisation would remove any impetus to see such a holistic overhaul through to fruition. We learn of the possibility of privatisation over a month after the discussion occurred - the importance of transparency cannot be understated. We hope that further news on this matter brings more cause for optimism, and sense that banner drops and similar stunts somewhat skirt the issue. Drop itlike it's cold "How many can see. Agarwal; Shrayans Agarwal; Raidev Akoi; Ahmed Alani; Hasib Baber; Fadhil Bakeer-Markar; Pria Bakhshi; Vishal Baner^ee; Ramsey Ben-Achour; Alex Blance; Nathan Briant; James Bull; Georgina Butler; Bobby Gee; Beth Cherry-man; Maitiu Corbett; Oliver Courtney; Tomas Da-Costa; Louis Daillencourt; Sara Downes; Hannah Dyson; Leon Fellas; Katy Galbraith; Ben Grabiner; Siddharth George; Justin Gest; Ira Goldstein; MiraHammad; Aula Hariri; Pooma Harjani; Yisum Heneghon; Charlie Hodgson; Tah^ Islam; Harriet Jackson; Judith Jacob; Felipe Jacome; Alex Jones; Megan Jones; Naeem Kapadia; Sam Tempest Keeping; Pooja Kesavan; Mazida Khatun; Alizeh Kohari; Marion Koob; Vivek Kotecha; Anna Krausova; Ashma Kiinde; Dominic Lam; Pl^Uis Lui; Nlzar Manek; Filipe Henriques Martins; Jamie Mason; Duncan McKenna; Nit3ra Menon; Anna Mikeda; Aditi Nangia; Brett Noble; Ryan Ong; Kyle Packer; Anup Patel; Jaynesh Patel; Rajan Patel; Sachin Patel; Ahmed Peerbux; Alex Peters-D^; Ben Anthoi^ Phillips; Ben Phillips; Chloe Pieters; Danielle Priestly; Rahim Rahemtulla; Anjali Raval; Ricky Ren; Joe Sammut; Thienthai Sangkhaphanthanon; Amrita Saraogi; Benedict Sarhangian; Katerina Soukeras; Jonathan Storey; Andre Tartar; Su Wan "Km; Kerty Thompson; Jack Tindale; Vladimir Unkovski-Korica; Aliabbas Virani; Simon Wang; Joseph Watson; Jonathan Weir; Chris Westgarth; Matthew Willis; Chris Willdns; Oliver Wiseman; Natalie Wong; David Woodbridge; Daniel Yates; Alex Young; Calum Young; Sofia Zabolotsldh; Mehek Zahac; Sadir Zayadine The Collective is The Beaver's governing bodty. You must have contributed three pieces of work, or contributed to the production of three issues of the paper (editorially or administrative^), to qualify for membership. If you believe you are a Collective member but your name is not on the list above, please email Benedict Sarhangian Collective Chair coUective@thebeaveironline.co.uk Mavlceting Team! Help get fresh Beaver on Houghton Street -join Mustafa and his Marketing Team. marketing @thebeaveronlme.co.uk rippling in the autumn wind, the white against grey?" The Beaver uses pictures from flickr.com which have been issued under a Creative Commons license. [301 to te [L@ll (MaiSMSSffl Mggfe §D[I1^ SDBal lal© te a @(iDaiiJ§© An electronic survey has been sent out to all LSE students asking them to rate their experience of this year's Orientation Please take this opportunity to provide us with your views on how we could improve Orientation 2011 and you will be in with a chance of winning cash prizes of £100 and £50, as well as a £50 tab in the Three Tuns plus three runner up prizes of a year's free entry to CRUSH! Your views are very important to us, and we will do our utmost to implement your feedback and suggestions so that we can make Orientation Week 2011 an even better experience for our students. To fill in the survey and enter the competition please visit our website www.lsesu.com/survey News 26 October 2010 | The Beaver Hare Krishna baclqiedals Conor Rushliy A queue to nowhere formed down Houghton Street at midday last Monday. With the unexpected move of the Hare Krishna food stall to a position adjacent to Water-stone's on Clare Market, regulars were left confused, disorientated and hungry. The move has been instigated by LSE Environmental Services, who have argued that Houghton Street has become too congested during weekdays. Due to the move not being publicised, however, some students took until Friday to realise that the stall had changed place. The LSE's obligation, explained Victoria Hands of Environmental Services, to keep the way of access clear as a public highway, was becoming difficult with a cash point, Barclays bikes, Wright's Bar, and Hare Krishna competing for space. An email was sent to the Food for Life organisation on Saturday, calling for a "trial period," in order to test it out. Ragik, who has distributed food at the LSE for three years, has expressed concern at the move. "My priority is to feed as many people as possible," he said, adding "and this street seems a lot quieter." Ragik, who ran a similar stall at SOAS in the three years prior to his arrival on Houghton Street, did however say that there had appeared to be "more demand for food" than in previous terms. The stall's patrons have not been wholly convinced by the move. David, a third-year economics undergraduate said, "It just feels really strange," while student Claudia Feather praised the move as "finally giving enough room to Wright's Bar." The Hare Krishna Food for Life Scheme has been operating since 1974, and is the world's largest vegetarian and vegan food distribution programme. The UK operation is run from a farm in Watford attached to a temple belonging to the Hare Krishna movement. The premises, which is named Bhaktivedanta Manor, was donated to the movement by George Harrison in 1973. Ragik has faced difficulty in the past from various parties on his food distributing mission, explaining, "Some people really just don't like what I do." In February diis year. Health and Safety officials repeateiy visited the stall, in spite of him holding all required health and safety certificates. There has also been friction with a cafe close to the SOAS campus, which ultimately led to SOAS security staff asking the stall to move. Moreover, Ragik claims he was told by the Houghton Street Natwest Branch Manager to move last year as he reflected badly upon the bank. Additionally, Ragik has faced accusations from Wright's Bar employees, one of whom has claimed that he "was ruining their business." When asked, Victoria Hands of LSE Enviroimiental Services described the initiative as a "fantastic organisation," and said that special bins wiU soon be provided for the biodegradable plates and spoons used by the stall. Hustings hit UGM Liam Brown Campaigning is now fully underway as candidates in the upcoming Michaelmas Term Students' Union Elections seek votes from fellow students. The positions up for grabs in this term's elections include General Course President and Mature & Part Time Students' Officer, as well as the selection of three Student Trustees, three students for the Academic Board (one of which must be a Postgraduate Student), two students ¦ for the Court of Governors, and two NUS Delegates. A new part-time paid position, that of Postgraduate Sabbatical Officer, has been added this year; the job has an £11,000 salary attached to it, along with a highly-prized desk in the Kingsley Rooms. According to the LSE Students' Union, the Postgraduate Sabbatical Officer will represent "the views and interests of LSE's sizeable postgraduate student base in the School and the Union." Charlotte Gerada, General Secretary of the Student's Union, has noted that there are thirteen candidates for the new sabbatical position, adding, "It's been very popular and we have some really able candidates." Although campaigning has just begun, the electoral process began two weeks ago for the candidates. Nominations opened on 11th October and prospective candidates had one week to submit a nomination form and manifesto, outlining why they wished to run for their chosen position. In all there are thirty-two candidates vying for positions in these elections: three for the Academic Board, four for the Court of Governors, four for the role of General Course President, three for NUS Delegate, thirteen for Postgraduate Sabbatical Officer, five for student trustee, and one for Mature & Part Time Students' Officer. In addition to these candidates, students can also vote to Re-open Nominations (RON), if they do not believe that any of the standing candidates are suitable. As in previous years, candidates are campaigning on a wide variety of issues, with demands for a microwave to be installed at LSE for student use, more bean bags in the library, and a vote on whether beer is too expensive on campus illustrating the plethora of pledges. Rhea Ranjan, a first year undergraduate student said although she knew the election was just around the comer she is still undecided, adding, "I think I am going to decide on my picks this weekend." Ranjan says she intends to vote, and is excited about the beginning of campaigning. "Elections on the smaller level are great," Ranjan says, adding, "You feel even more involved than you would for more general elections." Although most students are not likely to have their minds made yet, like Ranjan, there is no need to worry: campaigning continues until voting ends at 7PM on Thursday. Voting begins at loAM on Wednesday 27th October, via an online ballot on the Students' Union website. Union Basho Electioneering--------- Politicians should be like flags. How many of these rely on wind? Basho is the Beaver's evasive haiku poet. Look outfor more of his work, veiled in anonymity, infiiture issues. a "matched funding will end in 2011'' - Annual Fund SS continued from page 1 Nationally, students anxiously await a decisive move from the government regarding the fiiture of the scheme. For j^E students, the Annual Fund provides invaluable support for students who need financial assistance. The cut in government funding will surely affect diese student grants. Extra-curricular activities are also likely to suffer. The Athletics Union, Pulse Radio and several society initiatives such as the Grimshaw Club's Politeia International Conference, have all benefited from grants of thousands of pounds. Cuts made to any of these initiatives are sure to cause outcry amongst students. In recent years the LSE Annual Fund has attracted media attention regarding the donors themselves. Each January, the LSE publishes a list of "major donors," highlighting individuals or organisations contributing at least £5,000 to the School. According to the Press Office, most contributions in this category are given to a specific project or purpose, such as an endowed Chair or research initiative. According to the most recent list, published in January 2010, five organiza- tions - Emirates Foundation, Gaddafi International Charity and Development and Foundation, The Grantham Foundation for the Environment, Open Society Institute and John Templeton Foundation - donated more than £1 million to the LSE between 1 August 2007 and 31 July 2009. An additional seven doriors - Yayasan Albukhary Foundation, EFG Eurobank Ergasias SA, ICAP, Samuely Isaly (MSc Economics 1968), Nuffield Foundation, Paul Wooley and one anonymous individual - contributed between £500,000 and £999,999. An updated list of major donors will be published in January 2011, according to the Press Office. According to its website, the Emirates Foundation is an "independent, philanthropic organisation set up by the Government of the Emirate of Abu Dhabi to facilitate new public-private fimded initiatives to improve the welfare of all people across the UAE." Chaired by Saif Al-Islam A1 Gaddafi, the Gaddafi International Charity and Development Foundation (GICDF) is an international non-govemmental organisation that "carries out developmental and humanitarian activities in the social, economic, cultural and human rights fields." Mr Gaddafi is the son of son of the controversial Libyan leader Muam-mar al-Gaddafi, and is an alumnus of the LSE. He received a PhD firom the school in 2009, and, as the Beaver reported last year, donated £1.5 million to LSE Global Governance in July of the same year. This donation is one in a series of liriks between the LSE and Libya. Further, Howard Davies acted as Economic Advisor as part of the UK Envoy to Libya in 2007, and several LSE Professors are world experts on the region. In 2009, the Centre for Social Cohesion, a non-partisan, London-based think tank, published a report examining the impact of foreign donors at UK universities. The report concluded that many universities, including Oxford, Cambridge, SOAS and Edinburgh, among others, lacked transparency in identifying its foreign benefactors - including those associated vidth Arabic, Islamic and Chinese political regimes accused of human rights abuses. In an article published in the Daily Telegraph in March 2009, Robin Simcox, a CSC research fellow and author of the report, said UK universities had "a real problem" that needed to be addressed: "Universities across the UK are taking huge amounts of cash from regimes with appalling records on human rights... The country's finest universities are in bed with some of the world's worst human rights abusers." In response to queries regarding the vetting process of donors to the LSE, the Press Office have commented that "Potential major donations to LSE are scrutinised by senior staff in the Office for Development and Alumni Relations and notification is also given to the Development Committee, a sub-committee of Council which is composed of both senior LSE staff and friends and alumni of the School who are all significant donors themselves." According to the Press Office, in certain cases, the LSE's governing body, the LSE Council, also reviews potential donations. "All offers of support are welcome but care is taken to ensure that donations come from reputable and transparent sources," the Press Office said, adding that offers are "occasionally" declined. » "the end of public funding in universities..." Ckiiiiiiiept pages si News inbri^ CIJEGG UNCLEAR ON FEES CAP In a controversial move, Nick Clegg has revealed that the UK government will certainly consider removing the tuition fee cap for universities. The Deputy Prime Minister stated that the current financial status of the UK merited cuts in spending. In the interview with the BBC's Andrew Marr, Clegg said that the government will use the "best" aspects of the Browne review, which recommended abolishing the student fee cap. However, Clegg added that "we are looking at something less drastic." HOSPITAL DRAMA According to a report published in the Economist, John Van Reenan, a Professor of Economics at the LSE, in conjunction with Stephen Dorgan, has worked on research regarding the factors that differentiate the top performing hospitals firom those that are far less successful. In research that is tipped to revolutionise the medical field, it has been discovered that there are five factors, including com- ? petition, that will improve the status of hospitals. Interestingly, smaller hospitals, of less than 100 staff, are gnerally worst managed. The research was conducted by assessing 1200 hospitals. l-ROAMONITSWA¥ The new I-roam laptop loan service will be launched over the next few weeks at the LSE library. The service provides 60 laptops for staff and students. The computers are meant for use only inside the library, and can be picked from the charging cabinets on the ground, 1st, 2nd and 3rd floors. They come with internet access, personal file space and Microsoft Office applications. Users do not have to check out the laptops, but can pick them up from the cabinets and return them for charging once they have finished their work. IT assistance is also provided at the IThelpdesk. MASON TIPPED TO JOIN LSE The Economics Editor of BBC's News-night, Paul Mason, is rumoured to be joining the LSE. Reports remain unclear, however, it is supposed that Mr Mason, who has been in his current role since late 2006, will take on an advisory position within the School's hierarchy. Despite being asked to comment, the BBC refiised to discuss the fiiture of one of its leading presenters. Paul Mason's own publicist was also unavailable. Bringing Mr Mason to the LSE would be an enormous coup for the school: he has been one of the chief public intellectuals charged with analysing the recent economic crisis and he regularly writes for the Guardian. THIS IS NOT A DRILL This week a spate of fire alarms have caused anxiety amongst LSE students. The East Building was evacuated at 11AM on Monday 18th of October. Confiised students were herded out of classes, lectures and seminars and told to gather outside the Library at the School's fire assembly point. A second fire alarm sounded in the NAB at 2PM on Tuesday which had a similar affect on those studying. These multiple alarms have caused a great deal of concern amongst the student body coming in the midst of widespread strikes among the Fire Service. GOT A SCOOP? BRIEF US^ The Beaver welcomes all students to contribute to the News in Brief section of the paper. If you feel that there is anything noteworthy on campus please contact us at news@thebeaveronline.co.uk The Beaver | 26 October 2010 Student anger at CSR ChrislRoge» On Wednesday 20th of October, a coalition of trade unions and London student demonstrators descended upon Lincoln's Inn Fields protesting against the government cuts revealed in the Comprehensive Spending Review, released earlier that day. The Review proposed heavy cuts to Higher Education along with many other public services. The protesters criticised the "Cabinet of mUlionaires" and claimed the cuts will destroy jobs, services and worsen the recession. Officials hope the rally will encourage further such protests and promote the anti-cuts campaigns throughout the country. The rally was called by the Hol-bom & St Pancras Constituency Labour Party, Camden NUT and Camden Trades Councils. However united with them at Lincoln's Inn Fields were diverse groups including the Right to Work Campaign, the Socialist Workers, RMT, Tower Hamlets Unison, Camden Keep our NHS Public and hundreds of Students firom across London, including a contingent from the LSE. Initial estimates by those police who were present at the event put Ae numbers at over 1000 people at Lincoln's Inn Field, whilst the protestors put the numbers at around 2500, with more joining the rally along the way. Following the gathering, demonstrators marched to drum beats, past Parliament and joined hundreds of other protestors, organised by the Coalition of Resistance, at Dovraing Street. On route to Downing Street, Protestors chanted anti-cuts, and Anti-Con-servative rhetoric: 'David Cameron, get out, we know what you're all about - cuts, job losses, money for the bosses'. Others Shouted: "Unite, Fight, General Strike". The student sections of the rally focused on education, with chants of "no ifs, no buts, no education cuts" and "Education for the masses, not just the ruling classes" interspersed with shouts of "Tory Scum". Many of the protestors carried provocative signs, some declaring "Vince Cable - Nazi" and others decrying Nick Clegg as a "Liar, traitor, Judas". One charity worker in the demonstration argued that it was "not true that there was no alternative" and that "the poorest and most vulnerable will have to pay" for these cuts, while Terry a retired teacher argued that the cuts were "disgracefiil" and that the government clearly "doesn't know about education". Hesham Yafai, was one of the many students from Kings who had joined the march stated: "I hope this rally will act as a launch pad against Tory cuts, which are just part of an ideologic^ warfare by the Tories". The leaders of the demonstration included the chair of the Right to Work campaign, Paul Brandon who hoped that the rally, in addition to other protests like that on the 3rd October at the Tory Conference, will inspire flirther action to the point "the government is brought down and replaced with a government with the views of the people rather than the financial elite". Brandon declared "we are not gonna pay for a crisis we haven't created". Lukas Slothuus, one of the LSE Students on the march argued "the cuts are going to cripple public services". And that the LSE students at the march were there to express "solidarity with those losing their jobs because of the Tory Cuts and it is a great way for Freeze the Fees to get involved with the larger campaign". Once the protest reached Downing Street speeches were given by leading figures, damming the cuts. One such speaker was former MP Tony Benn, who proclaimed "We've got to make it clear that these cuts are not acceptable" and that the job of the protest was "to cany our message out to a wider audience" in order to influence public opinion and so put pressure on the government. LSE Students' Union Education Officer, Ashok Kumar, who also attended the rally insisted the march was "to show the government that they will not institute their crippling cuts without a fight", and was encouraged by the 50-60 LSE students who took part in the demonstration and "such a massive turnout bodes well for the November 10 rally and national demo". Israeli ministei' welcomes Arabs AimeeRiese "Equality and partnership for Israeli Arabs" was how the Israeli Minister of Minorities, Avishay Braverman, defined his role in a talk at tiie LSE last 'Thursday. Braverman spoke on the topic of "Israeli Democracy: Integration of Minorities" at an event hosted by the LSE Department of International Relations. Braverman discussed his proposals for Israeli Arabs, describing the last ten years as a "lost decade" for the Arab population. He voiced plans for subsidising employment for Israeli Arabs, particularly in the hi-tech sector, fiirther participation of Arab women in the labour force and aims to increase entry of Arab students to top universities in Israel. A member of the Labour Party in Israel, Braverman expressed his desire to transform his party whilst explaining his dissatisfaction about the way that Israel is developing. For example he spoke about his opposition to the controversial new loyalty oath which would require all non Jews taking Israeli citizenship to swear loyalty to Israel as a "Jewish and democratic state". He claimed that the proposals hurt the Arab population of Israel and damage Israel's international reputation. Furthermore he described Lieberman, Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs, who proposed the loyalty oaA, as "endangering Israeli democracy". Regarding the peace process Braver-man's aims are for an extension of the settlement freeze for a fiirther 4-6 months and the establishment of a Palestinian-Israeli committee to discuss the core issues of borders and security. He expressed his desire for an alliance between the moderates and his hope that the current leadership would be able to rise to the challenge stating, "justice means partition". In addition Braverman emphasised the refligee problem, both in terms of the Palestinian leadership's understanding of the impossibility of the Palestinian Right of Return, as well as the existence of Jewish refiigees in the Arab world. At the end of his talk, Braverman encouraged LSE students to pursue political careers urging young leaders not only to comment on history, but also to participate. He claimed that he decided to enter politics because of his belief in "economic development and social justice". The talk was well received by the audience. Hannah Geis, a first-year International Relations and History undergraduate told the Beaver, "I was extremely interested by the policies beiijg implemented by Braverman to amelior^e the situation of Israeli Arabs, in particular, the new effort to increase and facilitate Israeli Arab attendance of universities. This is a big step towards the integration and (fiirther economic) development of the Arab population." There were a handfiil of pro-Palestine protesters outside the New Academic Building where the talk was being given. Some of those who attended the seminar were bewildered at the small protest, having just heard a moderate politician who spoke with high hopes for peace and normalisation. Freeze the fees drops it like it's hot ShrinaPoojara Last Thursday at 2PM the Students' Union sought to escalate the 'Freeze the Fees' campaign by dropping a 6-storey length banner from the top of St Clement's Building. This action followed the release of the Browne Review of Higher Education two weeks ago, which recommended that the Government eliminate the current cap of £3,290 per annum on Higher Education tuition fees. The Students' Union emphasised that campaign supporters spent hours designing, painting and stitching the banner together. Hero Austin, the Community & Welfare Officer, described it as "the result of a huge collective effort... an eyecatching display and a feat of engineering that nobody on campus would be able to miss." Though the unveiling of the banner was unpublicised due to fears that LSE security would not allow it to go ahead, an agreement was reached with security and the banner was displayed for a fUl hour before it was taken down. In response to queries raised by students regarding the purpose of the banner, Charlotte Gerada, the Students' Union General Secretary, commented: "It was an important action, not just because it visually raises awareness about our campaign and our demands, but also because it is a strong message straight from the student body... Our approach is two-pronged: at the officer level through committees and at the student level through direct action. And we can most certainly do both effectively" Students, staff and visitors on Houghton Street were evidently taken aback by the Students' Union's effort. Many were seen using cameras and mobile phones to take pictures of the huge banner. Amena Amer, a postgraduate student and the chief architect of the banner drop, commented, "It's incredible how the Students' Union have managed to mobilise so many students through the campaign." The unveiling of the 'Freeze the Fees' banner was the latest manifestation in an active campaign that has also witnessed the release of helium baUoons outside Sir Howard Davies' office Damini Onifade, President of the Students' Union African- Caribbean Society, expressed his admiration for the campaign and remarked, "The Students' Union have done a great job in the sense that you can't have come to LSE and not heard about the Freeze the Fees campaign." Some students have expressed reservations about the campaign strategy; Robert Okpuru, a second-year undergraduate, stated: "I believe LSE needs better funding if it wants to compete against other international universities, which is perhaps impossible if the fees are kept at their current level. I think students need to be made more aware of the implications of freezing the fees so they can make an informed decision rather than just blindly following the campaign." Other students have also questioned the effectiveness of the campaign in attracting the attention of the LSE's senior management. Jajmesh Patel, a third-year economist, observed: "The Students' Union has had some good ideas for campaign publicity but Howard Davies has made it pretty obvious he's not going to listen to the student body on this matter." This was made clear in an interview published in the Beaver last week. Amena Amer, however, made it apparent that the Students' Union are not willing to take 'no' for an answer, saying; "Today's action is massive, but only the beginning. Our demands are at the LSE as well as the national government. This is only the beginning." In an impressive feat for the Students' Union, news of the 'Freeze the Fees' campaign has reached other campuses. Students at other London universities were impressed by the LSE's campaigning efforts and its evidently radical spirit; Ruhi Kanani, a second-year student at King's College London, commented: "The King's campaign definitely doesn't have the 'in-your-face' promotion that the LSE campaign does as most students at King's aren't even aware that it exists." Rhea Tuli, a second-year international student at University College London, stated, "I am not certain if the UCL campaign is on the same scale as LSE's, but what should be valued is that students, regardless of which University they are from, are collectively fighting to create a better university experience for themselves and for fiiture Higher Education applicants." Photo: a\^^esh Patel Pissaiides issues stem waming Calum Young LSE's new Nobel laureate in economics, Christopher Pissarides, has delivered a stern warning to the Chancellor that cuts to social security benefits in this week's Comprehensive Spending Review risk consigning an entire category of jobless workers to a spiral of poverty, disillusionment and long-term unemployment. Pissarides, a globally renowned expert in the jobs market who received his Nobel prize in Stockholm earlier in the month, is urging George Osborne to avoid the temptation to penalise the jobless. He also wants the Chancellor to be as clear as possible about the way he intends to make public sector savings, to avoid provoking a loss of market confidence in Britain's public finances. Pissarides' comments fit into a wider debate which is currentiy rocking the Economics faculty at the LSE, to cut or not to cut. The timing of government cut-backs and their scale remain highly contentious issues. 4MOtWSOf9a. Aif«c*i.Sama e LSE's Professor Christopher Pissarides News 26 October 2010 I The Beaver WweU channels Machiavelli through Number lo Neenq Mashru Jonathan Powell, Chief of Staff under Prime Minister Tony Blair, gave a lecture at the LSE last Tuesday on the subject of his book, The New Machiavelli: How to Wield Power in the Modem World. Powell asserted that the theories of Fifteenth Century politician Niccolo Machiavelli are still relevant today, relating the notorious teachings of'The Dark Prince' to his decade of experience as Blair's closest aide. Powell served as Chief of Staff from the Labour election victory in 1997 until Blair's resignation some ten years later. His unique vantage point from the top echelon of government decision-making has allowed him to fill his book with telling and, at times, amusing anecdotes of involving many prominent politicians. Powell discussed Machiavelli's reputation as one of the founders of modem political science, his most famous work being The Prince. This explores the acquisition, perpetuation and use of politicjj power in medieval Europe. Its scientific and cutting perspective on both politics and the nature of man in general has seen it condemned and censored as immoral. However, Powell rejected this as unfair, arguing that Machiavelli never advocated evil or brutality but merely analysed the politics that he observed around him. This approach led him to break free from the constraints of Augustinian thinking and develop the belief that personal morality cannot be successfully applied to ruling because others would not have the same qualms. Powell noted, wiyly, that while Machiavelli's advice on raising sieges had few modem applications, his writings in general are unrivalled even today as a handbook on power. Machiavelli differentiated between two different structures of government; a country where all men owed their loyalty to the prince was a firm and tightly bound one, whereas one with conflicting layers of loyalty was disorderly. PoweU related this thinking to the workings of our government today. He asserted that power being spread over dozfens of departments led to the problems MachiaveUi predicted. Powell identified that while loyalty to our 'prince' is less of a priority nowadays. Number 10 still needs the strength to rule executively without conflict. He quoted Blair caOing Prime ministerial power; "a shiny Rolls Royce I'm not allowed to drive." Margaret Thatcher, on the other hand, was used to showing how a strong leader might deal with the civil service. On one particular topic a 300 page document was written for her detailing why her intentions were not practical. After sacking the Head of the Civil Service, she was handed 30 pages detailing how it was practical. In a typical example of the complexities of dealing with the British CivU Service, Powell recalled one meeting where civil servants predicted a rise in crime if the economic boom ended as there may be; "more people who needed to nick stuff". When asked what would happen if the boom continued, they replied that crime would still go up as there would be "more stuff to nick"! Powell picked up on Machiavelli's belief that courage and intelligence were the two qualities vital in a prince. Courage gives him the ability to take firm action. Of course boldness can be folly, but "It is better to be bold than timid and cautious, because Fortuna is a woman, and the man who wants to control her must treat her roughly." Powell explained that this, rather chauvinistic, metaphor explains why Brown's indecision over whether or not to call the election in 2007, essentially cost him the vote in 2010. Blair was touted as the opposite - Powell quoted the parliamentarian Roy Jenkins who said that Blair had a "second class intellect but first class temperament". Powell gave an admittedly Blairite perspective on Brown, using him to illustrate Machiavelli's descriptions of a poor leader. Most notable was Powell's description of a meeting in an Edinburgh castle where he suggested the 1994 leadership contest was thrashed out between Blair and Brown, which had the audience laughing for some time. Powell described how Brown wordlessly stalked out of the room while Blair awaited his return anxiously. Eventually Blair received a phone call from Brown, trapped in a bathroom, begging for a rescue. Powell says that a natural tension between the Prime Minister and his Chancellor could be constructive but that under Blair it was detrimental. In another unique insight, Powell commented that when he asked Blair why he spent so long talking to someone who made his life so miserable, Blair replied "Jonathan, have you ever been in love?" An audience member commented that "the speech was coirfidently and professionally delivered - exactly what one would expect from someone who had spent so long at the right hand of a Prime Minister famous for his charisma and rhetoric". » Interview with Jonathan PoweU page13 Histoxy department lool« to the future Benedict Sarhangian Professor Dominic Lieven, Head of the International History department, this week issued his manifesto for the current academic year. In it, he listed the main grievances expressed by students within the department, referring to issues discussed at the Staff-Student Liaison Committee (SSLC). Amongst the biggest concerns were quality of teaching, exam and essay feedback and access to senior members of the department. Lieveri committed to tackle these issues, introducing a rule that all teachers must see students individually to discuss their first essays and that subsequent essays will be subjected to a new more detailed feedback form. The Intemational History department's pioneering approach was also taken with regards to the area of exam feedback, which has previously been amongst the most opaque and impenetrable aspects of the LSE. Whereas students in other departments can only get their transcripts via a lengthly Data Protection Request system, all 2nd and 3rd Year Academic Advisers in the Intemational History department are obliged to collate their advisee's transcripts and talk them over with the student during their first meeting of the year. This is a pilot scheme that LSE is planning to roll out should it prove successfiJ. Perhaps the most novel and admirable part of Professor Lieven's manifesto is concerning teaching standards. He notes that some students expressed dissatisfaction at being taught by Graduate Teaching Assistants (GTAs) but came to their defence, stating that the GTAs in the Intemational History department are amongst the best at The LSE. The department's training booklet is now used by most LSE faodty and their mentoring scheme has provided a model for the rest of the School. Professor Lieven then went on to say that while, most third year classes are taught by senior faculty, due to the large number of undergraduate courses and a vast Masters programme, this was not possible all the way through the course. He noted that in order to retain its position in the 'Research Excellence Framework' the workload of permanent members of the department had to be divided up between teaching and individual research and publication. Rather than just accepting this unavoidable fact, however, the Professor then went on to introduce 'roundtable discussions' - a series of panel based talks hosted by the Intemational History department's most expert professors. The topics will be closely matched to the key issues of the courses, but Lieven stressed that they will not just be a repeat of regular classes. The first one will be on the First World War, and the panel vvrill comprise Niall Ferguson, former head of department David Stevenson, the superlative Heather Jones and Dominic Lieven himself. If any fiirther incentives were required, he also promised enough alcohol to keep the informal discussion going. The Intemational History department has proven to be an example to the rest of the school and highlights the value that a good SSLC can have. Current IH SSLC Boss Astrid Barsk noted that 'any feedback you seriously voice they take into account and try to redress. "ITie IH professors genuinely want to hear what their undergraduate students have to say.' Chilean President digs way to development Heather Wang i On Monday 18th, LSE welcomed Sebastian Pinera Echenique, the president of the Republic of Chile. 'The president talked about Chile's economic, political and social situation in the past decades and stated his plans to solve the problems the country now faces. President Pinera started off by stating that, 'it is a privilege and an honour to have the opportunity to address you at the London School of Economics'. President Piiiera then went on to give a summary of the political and economic situation in Chile over the past three decades: 'During the twelve years from 1986 up until 1997, Chile's economy was able to grow on average of 8% a year, so we were able to double our per capita income every ten years'. However he added that from 1998 to 2010: 'we went through another twelve year period, but this time it was economic downturn. As you see, GDP went down by half, productivity which was rising stagnated, our creation of jobs was much weaker than the previous period.' The president then went on to express his desire to 'change [this situation] but in the opposite direction.' Piriera outlined his ambition aims for the remainder of his president, including creating economic opportunities, ensuring social justices, achieving better management and efficiency, having better quality of health care and education, lowering crime rate, improving quality of democratic system and defeating poverty. One particularly important aim is to recover damages caused by natural disasters such as earthquake and tsunamis with Piiiera stating that 'we [Chile] were hit by the fifth worst earthquake in the long history of mankind. And that earthquake was devastating and destooyed good parts of [our] infrastructure in terms of schools, hospitds and many other parts of our infrastructure.' The cost of the reconstruction plan is estimated to be $8.5 billion. Discussion then tumed to the recentiy rescued Chilean miners and the situation as seen from the President's point of view. Pifiera told his audience; 'Believe me, it has been an emotional story firom the beginning to the end... Without a second, we decided to take the fiiU responsibility to search and rescue every miner...We never lost our faith and we kept looking and looking... and after seventeen days, we were able contact them... That day, a real explosion of tears, joy and emotions went through every comer of my country... and so many people around the world.' At the end of the lecture, the audience asked the president questions on topics such as the ethnic conflict in the south of Chile, the voting system and on his political objectives. The President answered the questions in great detail and reiterated his determination of promoting democracy and equality. Throughout the lecture, Pifiera showed a lot confidence in the fliture of Chile and concluded by stating that: 'ChUe is a united country, a strong country and its able to face these challenges.' Ferguson hot on the Cold War Benedict Sarhangian Last Monday saw NiaU Ferguson take to the Old Theatre stage to deliver the first in a series of lectures on behalf of LSE IDEAS. The lecture focused on, what some may consider, one of the less glamorous aspects of Cold War, its political economy. Professor Ame Westad, himself an award winning expert on the subject, chaired Professor Ferguson's talk. The newly appointed Philippe Roman Chair began the lecture by thanking his benefactor and the LSE for such a warm welcome, and then, in his inimitable style, delivered a presentation that included an array of graphs and charts on the economic status of the Cold War. Ferguson responded with aplomb to critical analysis from both the Chair and the floor, though one student commented that he "left at least some of the audience a little confused about his overall argument." He rested his conclusion - that rather than economic determinism, it was the rapid expansion and relative robustness of the East Asian economies that shaped the Cold War - on examples that disproved his rule. Similarly, he stated that there were no flashpoints of the Cold War in the East Asian region, except Vietnam and Korea. Speaking to two students as they left they left the theatre, they felt that the lecture had tried to cover too much ground in too short a time-frame, and that while they had enjoyed the evening, they were not convinced by Ferguson's conclusion. Regardless of the particular merits of the arguinent, the consensus was that Professor Ferguson delivered an enticing speech that invited the audience back for more. During the lecture, he also admitted to having written several articles for the Daily Mail under the pseudonym of Alec Campbell, in which he had apparently predicted the result of the Cold War and the falling of the Berlin W^ at a time when that view was notably avant-garde. With a blend of humour and cynicism, he also pointed to rampant corruption and alcoholism as serious contributors to the Soviet Union's demise. Professor Ferguson is due to deliver a follow-up speech for IDEAS on 24th November. This event vkrill be ticketed and, if the last event is anjfthing to go by, exceptionally popular. iWm-. 6 The Beaver | 26 October 2010 Adveitisemeiit The Opportunity Successful Stock Pickers: Do you believe that you have the ability to manage a $1bn portfolio for 12 months to beat the market? The Orbis Stock Picking Challenge is your chance to do so by running a virtual portfolio with real cash payoffs. Will share in a prize pool of up to £10,000, depending on your performance. Will be invited to interview for internships or jobs at Orbis. Orbis Stock Picking Challenge in collaboration with The LSE Finance Society I cJofci. w M i- "f"^ •" V. ' 1. A'4 Find out more at www.OrbisStockPickingChallenge.com If you are up to the challenge, please submit a CV and cover letter to • ospc@orbis.co.uk by close of 1 November. [ORBIS www.OrbisStockPickingChallenge.com 26 October 2010 | The Beaver Time to change Austere times should cause a radical rethinl< of Britain's approach to drug control somewhat different. We need just look to some pioneering states that departed from the status quo and pursued better and more creative solutions than the simple extremes mentioned above. If there is any overarching lesson to be gleaned from their experiences, it is that there is no single solution, no silver bullet. T^ere is instead a fiiU spectrum of workable policies that can contribute to a successflU and multifaceted approach to this complex problem. For example, two immediate and pragmatic steps that the government can and should take are the following: Firstly, it should decriminalise the simple possession of all drugs. Criminalising use has never provided a successful deterrent, while ending it would save significant amounts of police time and resources, which could then be refocused on crimes like theft and assault. The recent evidence from Portugal, which decriminalised all drugs a decade ago, suggests that drug use has stayed more or less flat (even falling amongst younger people), while the negative aspects of drug use decreased markedly as users have developed a trust for, and greater access to, state-run treatment and healthcare programmes. Secondly, there should be a widespread roll out of Heroin Assisted Treatment. This is already taking place in parts of Britain, and is established government policy in Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany and Switzerland. All have witnessed significant decreases in crime, disease and cost to the taxpayer, as a direct result. The programme has the additional benefit of bringing users into contact with trained medical professionals who can then shepherd them into life saving treatment and help them gain control of their addiction while building stable lives. As a student and historian of international drug control, I view the notion that prohibition is the result of irrformed science and rational debate as an insipid a century's international legal sausage-making whereby professional moralisers and self-serving bureaucrats set the terms of the debate. Vi^en the failures of their approach became apparent during the ensuing decades, the response of the control bureaucracies was, time and again, to batten down the hatches and push on with the same approach regardless. Now, with the daily tit for tat of the drug war still playing out on our streets, a growing number of countries are willing to break from the failing status quo. British also has a serious opportunity to fundamentally reshape its failed approach to drugs and effect significant savings and social improvements in the process. The tragedy, however, is that our leaders seem more comfortable with repeating the same mistakes over and over, knowing fUl well that they will achieve the same failing results. Doing this in the face of our enormous economic crisis really is the so controversial? Why stem cell research is vital to the future of human kind John Collins Albert Einstein defined insanity as "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." How right he was. He also, less famously, observed that "the prestige of government has...been lowered considerably by the prohibition law," and that "nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law...than passing laws which cannot be enforced." The result of this, he correctly noted, was "the dangerous increase of crime in this country." Although he was speaking about his experience of alcohol prohibition in the 1920s, his observation still rings true for that other great experiment in state led insanity: drug prohibition. We have now entered the second century of this disastrous experiment which continues to destroy countless lives, tear apart families and communities, and propagate human rights abuses across the globe. But there are signs of change around the world. Even the traditionally hard-line United States has seen politicians from both the right and left slowly begin to form an unlikely consensus about the failures of this trillion dollar war of choice. With Britain in the midst of swingeing budget cuts, the luxury of throwing £12 million a year of scarce money after these bad policies has disappeared. The fiscal squeeze choking at all levels of society is set to get far worse before it gets better. It will leave almost all aspects of British life worse off for decades. The field of drugs, however, provides a bizarre case where a well managed fiscally conservative approach could bring about a far better social outcome than the status quo. Traditionally we have been presented with a choice between either militant prohibition, or unregulated legalisation as the only available options. The reality is Hannah Pa3me Stem cell research has long been discussed in scientific discovery - the argument that the unborn should have the same rights as the living is one fiielled by faith against science to the detriment of good research. Happily, with the beginning of the first trials of stem cells on patients in the United States, it seems that the welfare of the living is beginning to win out. The benefits of such research are not difficult to see; embryonic stem cells could have the potential to help patients suffering with long-term and ggnetic diseases such as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and paralysis. The science behind the work is easUy understandable: an embryonic stem cell is one that does not have the chance to take on a specific role in the human body, and can take up any role for the benefit of the patient. The cells could thus become a sort of'repair kit' for the body - though this dream is some way off realisation. It is specifically paralysis at which the new trials are aimed and treatments will not become available to patients for many years. It has been suggested, however. that this could become the biggest step forward in medical treatment since the introduction of antibiotics with Alexander Fleming's discovery of penicillin in 1928. So why is it that with the possibility of more of such revolutionary work there is so much controversy surrounding it? The core argument against the use of embryonic stem cells is not dissimilar to that of anti-abortionists: the idea that any existence may have the potential to become a fiiUy-formed human life should not have that potential taken away by human hands as it is morally wrong. The flindamental flaw here with regard to stem cell research is that those embryos being used are lab created and less than a week old. Such embryos would have no chance of a fiilly fledged life as they were never intended to do so. The moral argument, as I see it, is as to whether testing on a potentially human life is more or less immoral Aan abandoning the fate of aU those individuals who have lost at least some of their well being through illness that we have as yet been unable to find a solution. Surely the well being of the living is what we ought to protect. It is from the US that the most contentious opinions come - where there is a greater fundamentalist Christian community there is sure to be more extreme opinions on the value of human life in embryo form. Indeed, Jonathan Imbody of the Christian Medical Association reinforces his ideas by comparing current stem cell research to Nazi experiments, an example that cannot be related with any ease to the current trials taking place. Indeed, no one could deny that enforcing medical experiments on prisoners is an unethical practice but here it is free and rational adult volunteers that are making the choice and taking the opportunity to be part of crucial work. We must agree that the only ethics-based dispute with regard to the trials and indeed all work done with embryonic stem cells is down to when we believe an embryo becomes a human. It has been suggested that this is the biggest step forward in medicine since the discovery of penicillin This is one of the more difficult questions that is prominent in both science and politics today. The rules on abortion have been relatively recently contested in the UK but when considered rationally, the decisions made tend to be based on when a child could survive out of the womb. If we are to use similar analytical techniques then we must surely reach a similar conclusion with regard to stem cells. Indeed, this is a less complex problem for whilst we are continually improving infant mortality for premature babies, the point in the 'life'(I use this for lack of a more appropriate word) of an embryo when the researchers begin their work is when it is little more than a small cluster of cells. The controversy surrounding the work is litde more than an argument about human potential, indeed, a five-day-old embryo may have the potential to become a human life but even given the best chance of this success is not certain. But if potential life is what we are aiming for then surely we must encourage research and trials of this nature as the potential to live a life to the fiill is just as important and the opportunity to make that happen for those who cannot is within grasp. The brilliance of the human brain and particularly in those working in science ought to be celebrated and not discouraged by backwards-thinking individuals who cannot accept rationality and ideas that will be of great benefit to society. So, having made the first positive step forward all that remains to be seen is where this work may lead us in ten or twenty years time when, with some luck, we may well be reaping the benefits. Mad Hatter Tea Pairly candidate Ghuman fter sa3ang that she disagreed with judicial activism, she could not name a single Supreme Court decision to JBiprove her point. She had to make a campaign advert denying the fact that she was a witch and, just recently, she was unable to state which amendment in the US Constitution separated , the state and church. No, this is not Sarali Palin that we are talking about (although her blunders are oddly reminiscent of a Vice Presidential candidate), her name is Christine O'DonneU and she is the Republican Senate special election candidate for Delaware. Even within her own party she is not popular. Karl Rove, one of the key members of the Bush administration, is quoted as having stated that the woman said "nutty things" and that he was left unimpressed with her abilities as a candidate. Hardly the encouraging words that she needs to hear as she battles against her Democrat counterpart. Sarah Palin, who has had her fair share of the spotlight, told O'Connell that the best thing for her to do was to speak through Fox News. Her advice is to continue communicating with the American people. Her campaign manager, on the other hand, has other ideas. With a week to go before Americans take to the polls, it is taking O'Connell's campaign strategists everything they have to limit the damage their candidate is doing to her own campaign. Whenever she is in the spotiight, O'Connell makes mistake after mistake whilst Democrats sit back and enjoy the show. Although she is trailing her Democratic rival Chris Coons by a fair margin, her nomination has wider implications for American politics overall. She is not the only Republican candidate backed by the Tea Party movement to challenge the status quo of the more moderate Republicans. There can be no denying that there has been a swing to the right in America but this is not necessarily good news for the Republicans. The Tea Party movement is doing a very good job of splitting the core GOP vote - O'Connell's nomination is proof enough of that. However, these midterm elections are a referendum on the Obama Administration. Two years ago candidate Obama promised 'change' to a disenchanted country and today he is failing to reignite that faith in change as the American people struggle with a new kind of disenchantment. Hope has turned to apathy as Democrats fear that voters wiU stay at home on Tuesday. PoUs suggest that the Democrats may well retain a majority (of two) in the Senate with the House becoming Republican. Regardless, the Obama Administration is going to have an even tougher time of passing the rest of their legislative agenda. Just last week the administration heard how 'Don't ask, don't tell' will remain when it comes to homosexuals in the military and the administration is at a loss as to how close they are to closing Guantanamo Bay. The latest employment figures only increase the woes of an increasingly desperate administration. What the results of the midterm elections should do is spur Obama on to prove to those people who continue to question him that he is still up for the job and that he has no intention of becoming a lame duck President. After all, both Presidents Reagan and Clinton faced a hostile Congress during their presidencies and they have gone down in the national memory as popular Presidents. Democrats and Obama should not lose hope - the real test will come in 2012 if a Mrs Palin takes to the stage once more! 8 The Beaver I 26 October 2010 Gonimeiit The Dealing Compact is dead TKS coalition government has sentenced students to a lifetime of debt and signalled the end of public funding of higher education. It is wrong to do so. John ^ Peart Back in 1997, when tuition fees were first on the agenda of the then Labour government. Lord Dealing's report on higher education funding argued that those who benefit from higher education could reasonably be expected to pay a fraction of the cost of that course. Tlie since cherished 'Dearing Compact' saw higher education as a funding coalition of sorts, between the state, the student, and the employer, with each expected to pony up their fair share in line with the benefits derived from the system. Only 13 years later, the Browne Review, released earlier this month, fired a warning shot at this compact. The entire report was based on an assumption that there would be severe cuts in the higher education budget in the near fiiture, totalling 80 per cent of the teaching grant awarded to universities annually by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and a targeting of flind-ing toward subjects deemed to be more economically viable. Lo and behold, in a chicken-and-egg style scenario, George Osborne, Chancellor of the Exchequer, stood at the dispatch box in the House of Commons on Wednesday announcing the very same figures, with 7 per cent cuts to the budget for Department for Business, Innovation and Skills every year for the next 4years and • real terms cuts to science fiinding. In other words, the Coalition has declared the end of public funding of higher education and a destruction of the Dearing Compact. , And so we see, bom from the ashes of the last fortnight's disaster zone, the creation of the "Browne Compact". No longer is there a mutual balance between the student, the state and the employer, instead the Government sees fit to agree that the sole contributor to higher education should be the graduate and edge towards a true market in education. Whatever way you try and look at this, it is a total disaster for students, and for higher education as a whole. The sector was braced for cuts, but not on this scale. The inevitable outcome of the demolition of the higher education budget is that fees, at the most cash strapped institutions at least, will have to rise to at least double their current levels in order to sustain the same level of student experience. Of course, realistically, this will not happen in the way envisioned. The market in fees will not be based on sustaining quality and competition of course outcomes, but instead prices wUl be weighted based on league tables and prestige. The reality of this new Browne Compact is that elite universities will charge the highest fees because of their league table positions, and other less prestigious, but arguably better universities, will be forced to charge lower fees in order to remain competitive in the market. Of course this is wrong in two respects. Firstly, because league tables are heavily skewed towards research output - no fair way to set a fee level when the research has very little impact on your teaching -and secondly, it creates a widening gap between elite institutions that don't need the money - both because of their large reliance on private funding, and large cash reserves. That does not benefit students in terms of their debt burden, and it doesn't benefit students who could be herded like cattle into their lectures, have even less access to good resources than they do now and ultimately receive a terrible student experience. Of course the principles that form this new model are deeply flawed in themselves. Lord Browne and the Government believe higher fees will mean quality is driven upwards in universities because students will have freedom to move funding around the system. In fact the opposite can be illustrated even at the LSE. Fees for virtually every course have increased at rates equal to or above inflation for the last 6 years, and yet student satisfaction rates have fallen. And this is from an institution that already charges some of the highest fees in the world for postgraduate and international students. It proves that the market is inefficient at correcting these problems and justifying cuts and fees increases on the basis of improved choice and competition is flawed. Student debt already stands at an average £24,000 on graduation. Under these proposals, debt would virtually double to around £40,000 and would not carry any additional benefit. Rather it would merely prop up universities that are having the funding cut from the other end. Students should not be expected to pay more for less. The true argument for higher fees however, is to support deficit reduction. In fact that was the reason that the truly progressive option of a graduate contribution, like that put forward by the National Union of Students in its Blueprint for Higher Education, was dismissed as unworkable. The argument is that the substitution of fiinding from government to student will mean the Government can reduce the deficit meaning a better future for that same generation of undergraduates. Of course what they conveniently forget is that increased fees mean that they have to loan out more money via Student Finance England. The overall impact is that the government is back to square one for the duration of the Parliament because they will have to spend the money upfront anyway. And that poses the real question. Where should the debt burden fall? Given that student satisfaction across the sector has stagnated for the last 6 years despite increased funding and the trebling of fees and that graduate employment prospects are the worst they have been in a generation, is it fair to burden students with at least double the amount of debt that we will graduate with when the only real justification, when you wipe away the smokescreen, is deficit reduction? You can't expect students to pay more for the same, or worse, to pay more for less. That's not how the market works, and it would have Lord Dearing spinning in his grave. The d3dng notion of the social good The LSE's founding fathers were socialists, but at least they understood one idea Luke Smolinsld M M "W" fyou have an apple and I I have an apple and we I exchange these apples, then I you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas." So said George Bernard Shaw, a founder of the LSE. In the century that has passed since he said those words, we have forgotten one idea, one of central importance in the first half of the century; now it is rarely mentioned in public discourse. A wave of individualism and economic liberty, which gathered most pace in the 1960s and 1980s, has eroded it away. It is the idea of the social good. The idea is simple. It is as follows: there are some things which are not just good for the individual; they are good for society as a whole. Mostthingsarenot like this. An apple is good for me alone. If I eat an apple, only I benefit. There is no overflow. Education is different. An educated society is good for everyone. If I am educated, not only do I benefit - that can't be denied - but we also benefit as a whole. There is an overflow. Education is one example of a social good. Economists do not like this idea very much. It is simpler for their economic models to assume that we are all individuals. Consuming a 'good' benefits only the individual. Overflow is complicated, so all goods are apples. This simplification is harmless, but it has developed as a political idea. People who lived through the 1960s, who believed fervently and idealisti-cally in individual liberty, who saw their dreams crushed in the bleak 1970s, came to vote in the 1980s. Politicians, who saw widespread disaffection and electoral disillusionment, offered a simplified vision of freedom to voters. This freedom was far firom the liberties and rights that were demanded in the 1960s. It was economic freedom, freedom from government, the freedom to spend your money on what you wanted, not what the government wanted. Voters were drawn to this vision of freedom, and these politicians came to power. Then something odd happened. Politicians stopped talking about the social good. Politicians on the right and the left found that they could stop debating what was for the good of the nation, because there was a far easier way of being elected: by lowering taxes. Those on the right found that they could stay in power, so long as they professed that individuals - not the government - knew what was best for them. Those on the left became unpopular. Then they started to believe that the only way to get back into power was to start talking about lowering taxes. The social good could not be mentioned. Strangely, it is as if this idea - so . beloved of socialists like Shaw and the Webbs - has vanished altogether from public discourse. Take the recent debate on higher education. Lately, a report came out which advised that, as universities are poorly funded, as there is no money in the kitty, students should be saddled with £4,000 extra debt every year. You may have heard of the Browne Report. When it came out, there was a flirore. Yet the odd thing is that in editorials, in newspaper columns, in political magazines, the idea of the social good was rarely discussed. (Some columnists thought rich students should pay more; some editors thought the prospect of £40,000 debt wouldn't affect a poor students' decision-mak-ing; some threw about the notion of a graduate tax; everyone agreed foreigners should pay more.) The entire debate centred on the goods of individuals and how they should be balanced. The premise of the Browne report - namely, that all of ^e extra funding should be paid by the student - went unquestioned. I found this startling. Here is how an editorial could have looked: "Who benefits from a university education? Cui bono? The student certainly benefits. Those who are university-ed-ucated earn 40 per cent more on average than those who aren't. Is it good for anybody else? Every time you visit a doctor, every time you flick on the BBC, every time you pick up a paper, every time a scientist discovers a new drug, a new force, a new idea, who benefits? Documentary-makers, playwrights, thinkers, hacks, MPs: who educates them? Are we not more culturally enriched as a nation, a stronger, more informed, more deliberative democracy as a result? Is an educated society good for us all...?" And so on. The question isn't who should pay: the taxpayer or the student? It is a question of proportion. To what degree is higher education a social good? TThe heartbreak comes not from Browne's answer, but from the fact this was never asked. Letters to the Editor Sir - Re: Nicola Alexander's call for a secret society in LSE, may I suggest the Hummous Society? Liam CrowlQr Reidy, PSPE '11 Letters and emaOs to the resurrected Comment email address - coiiiiiiieiit@thebeavei'oiiline.co.nk - now our website's back up at long last, please! A meeting for any writers for the Comment and Features sections will be held in the Beaver office from midday until 2PM on Tuesday afternoon again this week. Please come along to discuss any queries with the sections' editors. Fears for the future Shahana ffk Begum As I flick through news channels, I am bombarded with the grumblings of 40-some-things in their Sunday-best ranting about the spending review, though the impact of imminent spending restraints on their lives will surely be minimal. The impacts of imminent spending restraints are far-reaching. The Students' Union is very conscious of possible impacts: the Freeze the Fees campaign has broken university records with staggering numbers signing up for the cause, but let us not forget that the coalition's Spending Review will have huge impacts. * The Shadow Chancellor, Alan Johnson, has already deemed the plans as more damaging than those introduced by Margaret Thatcher - but she oiJy made cuts of around lo per cent across several public sector departments. Now David Cameron alongside his very own band of not so merry men are proposing cuts of between 25 to 40 per cent to the Home Office, Transport and Industry departments, amongst others. These possible cuts are to the detriment to every LSE student. One of the greatest concerns for many students is safety - London is not the friendliest of places and cuts to the Metropolitan Police's budget aren't welcome as crime inevitably increases. One accepts that some cuts must be made, but surely when a country is suffering from worrying rates of gun crirhe and is at threat from possible terrorist attacks, cuts to the Met should be avoided - especially when such cuts are being made on a whim driven by ideology. As David Cameron and his pals get comfy in Number 10, safe and secure in their positions for four to five years enjoying coalition bliss - or at least until the Prime Minister can no longer bare to share with Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats. As Cameron and Clegg ponder about their own job prospects, it's orJy fair that graduates do too. Latest reports suggest that an additional 2,700 people across Britain claimed Job Seekers' Allowance last month, after a similar rise earlier on in the year. This problem will not be remedied by the Prime Minister's 'Big Society' idea. Though it is positive to support a culture of volunteerism, creating job opportunities is obviously more important and it seems that the Prime Minister is using this feeble initiative to attempt to provide a different agenda 'to the day by day litany of cuts, cuts and more cuts' as suggested by the BBC's Chief Political Correspondent, Norman Smith. It seems that some of the Tory old boys are still not convinced with Cameron's 'Big Society' plans - after a Conservative veteran was asked what the new initiative meant to him he replied 'not much', which is probably what the LSE graduates and the rest of the country have to look forward to firom the coalition: not very much at all! Comment 26 October 2010 1 The Beaver ing to last week's inteiview The Sabbatical Officers respond to the Beaver's article on them and their campaigns last week Charlotte Gerada, Ashok Kumar, Hero Austin, Charlie ilst we all might enjoy a cheeky, brief insight into the mind of the Director from time to time, upon reading last week's interview confusion, fhistration and antagonism were widely felt by members of the Freeze the Fees campaign team - oh, and not to mention us. Many found the comments made by Howard Davies about the campaign and our chosen actions to be disempowering, belittling and factually incorrect. So we felt like it was only right that we answered some questions about the campaign ourselves... Here we go: 1) Why Target Howard Davies? MYTH: It was suggested that us sabbaticals were 'ignorant' to the LSE committee system if we were to aim the campaign at him, instead of submitting papers and arguing our points in relevant meetings. REALITY: The reason why we've targeted Howie D is because the campaign involves a political decision, and it's a pretty big one at that. In fact so big that the big cheese himself must agree to it! That's why strategicaUy it's right to target the person in the School who has powerful, political decision-making ability. Howard also sits in aU the important committees like us, so it's safe to say that if he voices an opinion, or supports a view, then it's highly likely that others will follow suit. His is a powerfiJ player in the decision-making process, and we're pretty surprised that he underestimates that! Moreover, we will, and do discuss fees in the committee meetings we attend, and we have already submitted an 'Interim SU Fees Paper' to the Finance Committee, where our initial thoughts were discussed. Although we were not given sufficient air time, we got our opinion out and it was largely welcomed. And for those of you who enjoy fine detail about bureaucratic committee channels, the relevant committees to fee-setting and the order they precede are: firstly, the Student Numbers and Fees Committee, which reports to the Academic Planning and Resources Committee, which then seeks approval by the Academic Board, to finally get approval from the LSE Council and Finance Committee...and breathe! 2) Why Freeze the Fees? MYTH: Apparently the campaign is 'pointless' and no-one in the relevant committees is likely to support the idea. REALITY: Firstly, let us just state the obvious: Of course the Director will claim that our position is wrong and that it will be unsupported - after all, he must represent the (fairly narrow) interests of the School. However, we would like to remind all that your Students' Union is a historically progressive institution which exists to engage and represent you. And, we believe that a freeze on fees for all students is the fairest option for all - especially as the School can afford it. With 2,400 students signed up to the campaign, we're pretty sure we have a strong mandate to say that we will not tolerate elitism at our LSE. Freezing the fees keeps LSE progressive, accessible and true to our ' principles of social justice and equality. Simple as. 3) Why do we involve students in fun, engaging campaign actions? MYTH: Howard Davies claimed that we had to decide "whether [the SU] wants to take part in the School's decision-making processes, or if it wants to blow-up balloons." (In which he makes reference to our surprise balloon action outside his office, where students wrote messages to him about fees and floated them up to his window). Somehow he's suggesting that we have to decide about taking top-dowm formal channels to get a win, or to involve grass-roots campaign action that includes students in the process. REALITY: Well we say we can and should have both! Yep, we like to have our cake and eat it. It is critically important that the Students' Union has a seat at the table in university committees, but let us not have any illusions about it - these committees are not as democratic as we'd like. Discussions (maybe sometimes decisions) would have been made well before we receive our agendas. Nonetheless, whilst acknowledging this reality, we aggressively engage in our committees and v^rill always continue to do so. Also, we strongly believe that whilst we are the mouthpiece of students on committees, we also need to spend time empowering the students themselves, and giving them their own air-time. Momentum comes from the wider movement, it adds legitimacy, and engaging students in direct campaign action is central to our position as a democratic, campaigning Union. We go to conmiittees with a mandate which is strengthened by organising and action on the ground by students. 4) Why does the next Director feature in our demands? MYTH: Howard Davies thinks we're trying to fire him. REALITY: Oh dear, we feel as if there's been a little bit of crossed-wires here. We know that in 2013 Howard's term officially ends and we're not sure if his intentions are to try and extend his stay. Fear not lovely Howard-loving fans!... We're not suggesting to oust the Director! However, we think it is critically important to make a secondary demand that irrespective of whether he is allowed to stay or not, the next Director be chosen on the basis that their decisions regarding fees are made responsibly, with respect for the SU position on fees. This demand is a proactive one, with future defence in mind. 5) Does asking for a freeze on fees really add up? MYTH: Howard Davies stated that in light of the Browne Review, our campaign "belongs in another age." REALITY: It is precisely because of the Browne Review that our campaign belongs in this age. Although the Browne Review was brimming full of shocking, ill-thought out and sector-destrojang suggestions, there is stiU time for the government to make decisions about which bits it'U adopt and which bits it'll ditch. Let's not forget the huge national NUS and UCU Demo on November loth with thousands of angry students that MPs have to contend with before they make that vote. Whilst at the moment it has been suggested that Science, Technology, Engineering, Maths, Medicine and some selected foreign language Teaching Grants will be ring-fenced firom cuts, and Arts, Humanities and Social Science will not, we still don't know how cuts will be instigated. The suggestion has been made that it will be towards the end of the cutting period (which is a couple of years from now). But LSE does have a Maths department which will still see Teaching Grants supporting it, and even with a total loss of the Teaching Grants across the board, the cost (at worst) would amount to around £7 million, which LSE could comfortably afford with millions leftover. A Freeze on Fees, we would like to add, is economically viable as LSE has DOUBLE the recommended surplus for a public institution of over 8 per cent. In fact, we have the largest annual surplus of any institution in the country. So, the question really is: What does LSE prioritise in these more difficult than expected times? LSE's Current Perspective: Continue to buy up the entire neighbourhood, despite no further planned expansion of the student body in the near future. Capital Projects (which include things like fliture refurbishment, upgrading of buildings and facilities and the New Student Centre) are already planned and budgeted for. So, these 'capital commitments' which will do up our 'semi-crumbling' campus would not be compromised by a freeze on fees. OR: An equitable, accessible institution staying true to its core principles. Which do you prefer?! 6) Is it OK to increase fees, as long as we increase Widening Participation (WP) activity? MYTH: Howard Davies claimed that WP activity, including providing bursaries and scholarships is enough to counter tuition fee hikes. REALITY: Sadly, bursaries and scholarships are not enough. Howard's example about London South Bank and Oxford universities reinforces our point about the limitations surrounding bursaries. Although South Bank doesn't offer many bursaries, it gets a higher percentage of students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds appljdng, unlike LSE. Obviously, simply offering more bursaries is not going to do enough to encourage more students to apply when students from poorer backgrounds are already more likely to attend institutions that don't provide generous support. Howard is right that the LSE should do more with WP (the SU is doing this too for the first time, which shows we are focusing on 'real issues'). But he neglects the other contributing factors: people are put off because LSE appears elitist and inaccessible. Raising fees would only serve to exacerbate that perception. So when Howard asks: "What would make it more likely that bright and ambitious students apply here?" we can say: freeze fees. If we make fees affordable and undercut the market that Lord Browne would love to see, then students v/iU definitely come. 7) Why should the SU spend its time on campaigns? MYTH: It seems like Howard was alluding to the point that the SU is wasting its time on campaigning activities and that the only valuable action we can take is through bureaucratic channels. REALITY: Quite obviously, the success of our campaign doesn't sit comfortably with the School; they're not used to the SU running broad-based, campus-wide campaigns that challenge the School or their decisions. But we're not elected to get into bed with the Director or hold hands with the senior management... If you expected that, better go to Imperial. We are elected to defend students' rights and echo students' voices. Simple. The Browne Review, the Comprehensive Spending Review, the current government and some university Vice Chancellors (Directors) are all making deep-cutting attempts to destroy our Higher Education system and all it stands for. This is a big year for HE and its fiiture, which is why we must fight, in unity with other Unions, students, stafi", workers and the public, to stand-up for HE and defend it with all our might. We welcome discussion and debate about the future of LSE with Howard, with staff members, with any of you reading this, because ultimately, we just want what's right: an accessible, socially just, public institution. Campaigning is at the heart of LSE's Students' Union, and wrill always remain so. We have signed up around 25 per cent of the student body to the campaign, met with nearly all the Academic Department Heads, got fiiU backing from LSE's UCU (Universities and Colleges Union), received letters of support from academics, staff, alumni and governors alike. Be . under no illusion - we're not running a negotiating campaign that potentially compromises the fiiture of our LSE. We have to take a radical stance for students because who else will? Charlotte Gerada, General Secretary, LSE Students' Union; Ashok Kumar, Education Officer, LSE Students' Union; Hero Austin, Community Welfare Officer, LSE Students' Union; Charlie Glyn, Activities Development Officer, LSE Students' Union Union's campaigns need improving Why the Freeze the Fees campaign continues to be fundamentally misplaced Leon Fellas There are very few things in the world that I can say with absolute certainty. One is that cider is better than lager; another is that baseball is really boring. I don't know why Americans love it so much. However, we can leam a lot from the baseball in a discussion of the rights and wrongs of tuition fees. A quick question: what do baseball fans and UK students have in common? At first glance it seems rather a random question, yes, but the answer is that is potentially key to illustrating the fees debate. When baseball fans threatened to walk from the sport after a series of labour disputes and lockouts, what did they actually do? They came back for more. Whilst fees have continued to increase, students haven't ditched higher education - more keep applying. Our threats are empty. The study into the effects of lockout seasons in American sport was compiled by Professor David Berri, a prominent sports economist. The study of supply and demand of tuition fees was explored by none other than the now ittfamous Lord Browne. Whilst tuition fees have increased year on year, demand for places at Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) has steadily increased. Demand stiU outstrips supply vidth many students having to reassess plans after not landing places at those chosen university and even with the threat of large increases in fees on the horizon we are still experiencing record numbers of applicants for the forthcoming academic year. So what does the economist do when he is faced with excess demand? He raises the price to detriment of the consumer - and this is the dividing ground - where the Dark Side, Lord Vader (Browne), Darth Sidious (Sir Howard Davies) and the Republic (LSESU) clash. The LSESU maintains that students wiU refuse to accept higher tuition fees (something we don't see empirically) whilst the Dark Side want to levy more money for their respective interests. In turn the Sabbs have thus decided to run their Freeze the Fees campaign; with the intended outcome of...well, I don't actually know (given that Howard Davies firoze their arguments in Features last week). Certainly they have achieved one thing: Howard Davies is playing a damn good game of hide and seek to the point that it appears only Sachin Patel (Beaver, 731) can find him. Unfortunately for Freeze the Fees it needs to get the backing of Howard Davies and it appears this campaign does not, even if they have a lovely little banner. As we saw in last week's Beaver and at the UGM, if you asked 100 students on the merits of Freeze the Fees you would get 100 different views - this is where the problem lies. This campaign does not get the unequivocal backing of the student body, and that should ring alarm bells for the Sabbs. The core strength of a strong student campaign is a unanimous voice, and that is not what we as a body can deliver on this issue. However, there is one issue all students agree on: improving student satisfaction. Even though the LSE has made some strides forward in teaching quality, it stiU finds itself near the bottom of the Russell Group. This is a black eye not only for the School itself, but for us students. Not overlooking the negatives of an unsatisfactory student experience during our education here it hurts LSE where it counts. Whilst league tables are hardly flawless, they are the best way to compare universities' performance. However, the Browne Review offers a possible resolution. It lies in a rarely mentioned but significant conclusion of the Browne Review. In it is a reference to the relationship between alumni and their HEI. As a country we just don't give enough to our universities as our contemporaries in other countries do. Browne argues that this puts us at a disadvantage to our rivals and proposes a streamlined system for making voluntary contributions far easier. This, I feel, is the innovative part of the review - in effect this gives the university the incentive to improve satisfaction, students to make financial contributions that count for their university and a real quantitative measure of how well a university is satisfying their Whilst fees have continued to increase, students have not ditched higher education students. It gives a natural coalescing of the aims of the Student body, and the director of the School. Whilst Freeze the Fees maybe an agreeable short-term aim, improving teaching quality and the student experience is the long-term aim that wiU improve student welfare. This is where our Sabbs can really deliver; this is what we should be campaigning for. I have been fortunate to have been taught by award-winning teachers, and the difference it makes to your course is immeasurable. And whilst blowing up balloons might give a strong public show, in the end it is results that count and the previous Sabbs - and I fear incumbent also - are falling into the same old rhetoric-filled and campaigns predestined to fail. A strong Union will stand by a well-backed, compelling campaign. Whilst ground was covered in the resits campaign it has been left at the back of the cupboard, and endeavors to improve teaching quality seem to have taken a back seat. The forefront of any Students' Union should be the happiness and welfare of its students. I implore the SU to rid itself of fhiitless campaigns, posturing and catchy slogans. We need an SU that campaigns not to shave a few pounds off fees but to drive to the heart of what all students want. Photos by Ja3mesh Patel and Duncan McKenna The Comprehensive Spending Review rally T.Cv 1 - 5S?2S!! ?r vfA. ' V .; • 2 "^y -. ilil x„V Biba is Back. Carrots and couture Following House of Fraser's Biba relaunch^ Barbara Hulanicid is bringing the real Biba back u .# ?. •' ^0 UTU O 0 -pi Food. Going beyond Costa Idiwin Loo, London, and the 'Third Wave' of toffee Fernandez & Wells 16a St Annes Court, Soho, London W1 Nearest Tube: Leicester Square A gorgeous little espresso bar and cafe that serves up drinks made witli Hasbean Espresso; lovely tones of banana liqueur and chocolate in the blend. Order a 'Stumpy' - Wjo shots of Hasbean espresso pulled from a very (very) expensive Synesso machine and topped with two parts steamed milk and prepare to be utterly amazed. Also open until 10pm Wednesday to Saturday, which is very useful I (http://www.fernandezandwells.com/) The Espresso Room 31 Great Ormond Street, Bloomsbury, London WC1 Nearest Tube: Russell Square A small place run by my mentor and trainer, Ben Townsend, and recently voted Best New Coffee in London, the Espresso Room is a welcoming abode directly opposite the Great Ormond Street Children's Hospital. Try out their flat whites - made with an espresso blend sourced from Square Mile Coffee in Bethnal Green, an independent roastery owned by two World Coffee Champions. (http://www.theespressoroom.com) Federation Coffee Brixton Village Market, Off Coldhar-bour Lane, Brixton, London SW2 Nearest Tube: Brixton George and Nick are an ex-accountant and ex-investment banker respectively who decided to hang up their 9 to 5 jobs in order to open a fantastic espresso bar in the now very fashionable Brixton Village Market. Pop by for a Luxury Flat White (made with extra creamy Jersey Cow's Milk and chocolate, malty Nude Espresso blend) and amusing banter before checking out the vintage shops, pop-up galleries and small restaurants in the Market. (http://www.federationcoffee.com) Lantana 13 Charlotte Place, Fitzrovia, London W1 Nearest Tube: Goodge Street Winner of Time Out's Best Cafe in London 2010 and a brilliant little place with a gorgeous vibe. Food is top notch, and the coffee is supplied by Monmouth (I personally think they execute Monmouth with better nous than the actual Monmouth) and is worthy of the highest praise. Very easy to access if you live in Intercollegiate Halls or Passfield. (http://www.lantanacafe.co.uk/) Flat Cap Coffee Strutton Ground Market (Opposite New Scotland Yard), Victoria, London SW1 Nearest Tube: St. James Park It may be a humble coffee cart, but Flat Cap is owned and run by a former Brazilian Barista Champion (Fabio) with a knack for doing the impossible and an ex-LSE boy (Rob). Attracts a huge following from the nearby offices. Parliament and Scotland Yard. Coffee sourced from Square Mile Roasters. (http://twitter.com/flatcapcoffeeco) Your typical chain coffee shop is almost the same as the other. It sits on a prime high-street location, and my mon-ii ey is on the distinct possibility that you could probably find another five within spitting distance. You enter to the same familiar scene: the smells of coffee (usually stale) and milk (usually burnt) being combined to form drinks of ambiguous definition by staff, usually grumpy and frumpy. This is the rather pitiful reality of the coffee experience in London. Coffee to us is a commodity - we want it cheap, and we'll take it, even if it's made with stale six-month old beans in a machine that's never been cleaned, by a company that likes to claim they could train monkeys to do MY job. But honestly- it doesn't need to be like this. If you're willing to look-you'll find exceptional coffee at very affordable prices. Coffee made by people like me: passionate people focused on quality who suddenly find themselves caffeinated to near death at 4PM trying to 'tune' the perfect shot of espresso. Welcome to the 'Third Wave' of coffee. A strange, geeky and wacky world- but one where you, as the customer, get what I will guarantee is the best coffee known to man (and woman). To us who work on the cutting edge of the 'quality revolution' in London foodie scene, coffee isn't a commodity. The difference between our coffee and the coffee you get from the scowling lady at your local Nero is the same difference you will find between a block of Tesco Value Cheddar and a finely crafted artisan cheese tended to by a loving farmer It's the difference between White Lightning and a lovely bottle of Thatcher's Katy. It tastes different - in fact, it tastes so much better, and in some cases, it doesn't taste like coffee at all! Coffee is not just a uniform flavour masked by a round body of bitterness- it has more discernable tastes, flavours and textures than wine. A Kenyan coffee grown at high altitude will have acidic notes of currants, limes and fruits. A Nicaraguan will have undertones of dark chocolate and berries soaked in liqueur. Sumatran coffees tend to have a strong earthy taste, with the slightest tinge of bananas depending on the exact variety. Coffee is also a very delicate thing to work with; so is the milk we pour onto espresso to make drinks such as, but not limited to, cappuccinos, flat whites and lattes. Preserving these delicate flavours requires almost OCD levels of cleanliness and attention to detail - something which chains simply can't and won't do - keeping the espresso machine and coffee grinder free of old coffee grinds (which eventually go rancid) and ensuring you don't abuse milk by burning it or re-steaming it multiple times. So why do I think coffee from Starbucks tastes dreadful? Apart from the fact that the coffee is probably the cheapest available, they simply don't care as much as we do. So what is the 'Third Wave'? It refers to the rise of quality-focused, independent cafes and espresso bars in London and other major cities. It originates from Australia and New Zealand, where people began to do things to 'Italian' espresso that still causes controversy today More importantly, it focuses on getting perfection when it comes to both taste and presentation. This means quality: quality working practices, quality coffee and well-trained baristas. The places I go to (and work at) focus on being the best. We churn out beautifully crafted flat whites and lattes served at the right temperature in the right size- drinks in which you actually taste coffee and its multitude of different flavours and aromas, not dirty machine or scalding milk. Drinks served with pleasing latte art - yes, those pretty hearts and trees that Costa puts on their adver- tising but not on their drinks. Coffee beans that aren't just 'fair-trade' but even better. London-based speciality coffee roasters like Nude Espresso, Monmouth and Square Mile usually pay up to seven times the market price for fantastic beans sourced from the best coffee farmers around the world. Why drink at our cafes and bars? Because, unlike the chains, we add diversity to your high streets and are genuinely local businesses. And unlike the chains, we're focused on ensuring you feel utterly pampered with every sip of your drink. You deserve the best possible value for money Why on earth should you be hoodwinked at Costa for a 'flat white' that tastes bitter and burns your tongue when we could whip up a silky, velvety drink with undertones of chocolate, liquorice and berries, which goes down a treat and would cost you the same if not less? So, are you ready to take the plunge? To the left is a small selection of the best places - surprisingly enough, many are in fact cheaper than the big chains. Why pay more for rubbish? , * Dave Robson of Fernonder & W«{ls (Twitter & rlickr: RobsonBorista) Quick tips for a great coffee at home 1. Don't bother with Espresso. Good espresso at home is near impossible without shelling out thousands for the right equipment. Espresso is the extraction of coffee under high and stable pressure and temperature - and most cheap home machines you'll find at Argos simply can't do it. The best coffee in terms of flavour that you can viably make at home as a student is with a French Press - so we'll work with that. You should be able to steal one off your parents, or get one without much financial bleed from your local supermarket. 2. Get decent coffee. Coffee is a delicate little darling. Once roasted, it goes off within three weeks. Once ground, it begins to go stale within hours. Stale coffee beans or stale ground coffee means a very bitter and unpleasant cup. You ought to avoid supermarket shelf stuff -chances are it's been sitting ground-up in a warehouse for months before hitting the shelves. It's best to source your beans from a reputable roaster - Has Bean (has-bean.co.uk) and Square Mile (square-milecoffee.com) do amazing filter coffees. 3. Grind beans to order. Once coffee is ground up, it begins to die. If you want the fantastic fruity (or chocolate) undertones bouncing around in your cup, you ought to grind your coffee beans right before you intend to brew. It's worth investing in a proper grinder with burrs - blade grinders give you an uneven consistency, which means an uneven extraction and again, a bitter, nasty cup of coffee. Both the Hario Mini and Mario Skerton (available online at coffeehit.co.uk) are cheap, entry-level hand grinders under £30 that will easily last you a lifetime and produce fantastic results. 4. Filter your water. Water in London is exceptionally hard, and hard water is very, very bad news for coffee. Most cafes and espresso bars worth their salt take water hardness seriously- you'll find a lean, mean filtration machine underneath their counters. For good home brews, you will need a decent water filter: Brita, or something similar, to deal with hardness. A kettle for boiling the filtered water is also a good ideal 5. Follow some good instructions. And finally, you can find lots of decent instructions online. I heartily recommend brewmethods.com which is choc-a-bloc full of instructions, videos and other DIY guides to making that perfect cup of coffee at home! ; Edwin Loo is a third-year Government & \ History undergraduate and 'Third Wave' \ Barista working in and around London. \ He blogs about coffee and food at cof-j feeteaother.com and you can find him on ' Twitter Qtheposhbarista fashion. Another re-Biba-l? Biba. A name to typify the 60s, a brand born from post-war revolution, founded on Britisli rock music and fantasy aestlnetlcs. Forty-six years since Barbara Hu-lanici000 amount paid to write this I colifmn 100,000,000 weei% air miles This coluinn bears no resemblance to ^.^.g^Weekend columnist. Monocle editor, and cosmopolitan metrosexu^ A Greasy deal Pem-Yi Quah evaluates the breadth of Venezuela's oil diplomacy Hugo Chavez has done it again. Last week, Venezuela signed an agreement wdth Russia on co-operation in the atomic sphere, with Russia agreeing to build a nuclear power plant in Venezuela in the near future. In return, Russian companies will receive ownership of some oil companies in Venezuela, as well as access to the country's vast oil reserves. This is bound to infiiriate the United States, because it is a break in the comfortable status quo that it currently enjoys. The influence that it has over tJie Latin American continent will soon be diluted and fall into Russian hands. Ever since becoming president in 1999, Chavez has gained international recognition for his antagonistic stance towards the United States because of its "intrusive" foreign policy around the world, especially, Latin America. This brand of criticism has led him to enact his own so-called "oil diplomacy", which consists of using Venezuela's oil wealth to impose his own vision of Latin American integration and autonomy, aU the while reducing American iirfluence on the continent. Venezuela has had close ties with Russia for some time now, and Chavez's recent trip to Russia to conclude this recent nuclear deal is his 9th time in the country. Previous deals have included mUitary and technological sales in the region of a few billion dollars, but the true cornerstone of the Venezuela-Russia co-operation is this nuclear deal. It required huge amounts of political will to be enacted because it was bound to "provoke different emotions" in countries such as the United States and will bind the two nations for at least five to ten years. The agreement thus reinforces their desire for co-operation and the win-win situation that this deal brings about. But Venezuela is not alone in wishing to create a "multi-polar" world. Russia has long been pursuing this end-goal as well. Apart from agreeing to build nuclear power plants in Venezuela, Russia has also agreed to do so in places such as Iran and China - attempts to project its influence in these key nascent world and regional powers. Simultaneously, these nuclear deals wiU also serve to strengthen the dominance of Iran and China by providing them access to nuclear energy technology, as well as allowing them the possibility to be free from being overly oil-dependent. The growth of influence that Russia, Iran and China are experiencing is being achieved at the expense of the United States'. This is because influence is really a zero-sum game. Therefore this recent nuclear deal is truly a convergence of the two countries' vision for a different tomorrow - one that does not include the continued hegemony of the United States. Aside from its ideological motivations, Venezuela also has some practical reasons for wanting to invite Russian nuclear technology into its borders. Chavez's Venezuela is currently too dependent on oU - it is the Western hemisphere's largest oil exporter and more than 90% of its total export revenue comes from oil sales - making it particularly vulnerable to oil prices. And so, nuclear power plants in the country will help diversify its energy sector and therefore to wean itself off its export economy's dependence on oil sales. Some decidedly witty critics have made the analogy that Venezuela importing a new energy source is like "Alaska importing more snow". But this particular display of wit is just that - an aniogy, and no more. Because the potential threats from the fluctuation of oil prices wiU have a huge impact on the economy of the country, and consequently the lives of many Venezuelans. Even Russia, which derives 60% of its export revenues from oU sales, is actively diversifying its export economy I in order to make it less vxilnerable to such fluctuations. This recent nuclear deal should noticeably dilute American influence in the Latin American continent. Previously, only United States and European companies have had stakes in the building and ownership of nuclear power plants in Latin America, courtesy of Brazil and Argentina, but they have now got company. By allowing Russia into its country, Venezuela has also ceded a certain influence to it within the region. Russian companies now control various oil companies and reserves which supply the energy for much of the Western hemisphere. Venezuela and Russia have truly taken quite a step in creating a "multi-polar" world order indeed. Upon conclusion of this deal, and true to his flamboyant style, Chavez praised Russia and presented the Russian president with several bars of dark chocolate, cans of banana jam and cocoa powder. Oh, and there was ample mention of the "Yankee empire". 5*^ i™i ...England held on? Election Candidate tt abour's electoral vie-toiy at the 1970 General Election did not come as a surprise to many commentators. Harold Wilson's decision to call the poll for the middle of the World Cup campaign was a risky one, but England's victory against West Germany the day before the ballot boxes opened proved a boon for the government. Labour were returned for a record third term in office, albeit with a substantially reduced majority of 16. As the Prime Minister relaxed in his Liverpool hotel room, the Leader of the Opposition was forced to endure even more rumblings from his disappointed backbenchers. Ted Heath had never enjoyed a firm base of support from his party and despite his original intention to remain as leader, pressure from the 1922 Committee forced him to resign and stand again in the leadership ballot which was held the following January. The man who was to beat him in the contest shocked , many commentators. Keith Joseph had been an anathema for many moderate Conservative MP's since the early 1960's owing to his unrepentant right-wing political views. Despite this, the effects of a struggling economy and a new found desire for radical policies allowed the Shadow Secretary of State for Social Services to win on the second ballot, easily defeating the former Chancellor Reginald Maudling. Joseph's views on race relations had proved highly controversial in the media but they were ones that were also shared by his new Shadow Chancellor, Enoch Powell. Despite welcoming the election of such right-wing opposition, the Labour Party's victory honeymoon was short-lived. Strike action by the Union of Communication Workers and NUT coupled with the government's decision to join the EEC resulted in a period of deep unpopularity for the government. The issue of -European Community membership also caused splits to develop within the Labour Party, cumulating in the resignation of the Health Secretary Peter Shore after the government was forced into using the Parliament Act to force through the legislation. Beset by by-election defeats, industrial action and a growing party schism, it was surprising that the defeat in the 1974 election, prompted by a confidence motion, was not greater. The Joseph Ministry would prove to be one of the most controversial in British history. A tough Immigration Bill, measures to privatise British Leyland and the first wave of radical trade union reform were just some of the measures in the 1974 Queen's Speech, as was a far more hardline policy towards Northern Ireland. The Labour opposition, beset by ideological splits, was forced into a divisive leadership election, eventually choosing Roy Jenkins over Michael Foot by the narrowest of margins. An upswnng in industrial action by the Trade Unions only increased the Prime Minister's resolve in seeing out the crisis, an area he was ably assisted in by Chancellor Powell and the Industry Secretary, Julian Ameiy. The trade union reforms passed the Commons with oiJy token opposition from the government benches, although leading figures of the moderate faction of the party, notably Ian Gilmour, abstained. Keith Joseph's next challenge, the issue of sectarian violence in Northern Ireland, would prove to be far harder to deal with..." To be Continued Next Week. Measured musings Features would like to apologise for two mis-spellings in last week's issue: Moses Lemuel and Daniel Lahey respectively wrote A love for the tragic' and 'The Stuxnet stop'. What is most striking about Wednesday's Comprehensive Spending Review announcement is not the amount of protest emerging from the usually combative British media, but rather the breadth of its criticism. Some, for instance, claim that the NHS, despite its ring-fenced budget and the promise to continued real increases in spending, is 'a volcano ready to explode'. Others argue in earnest that the trimming isn't yet ambitious enough: according to this line of comment, a flirther rollback of the state is imperative to safeguarding the UK away from financial collapse. All vnll at least agree that the judge of these claims wnU be the national level of Reviewing fairness a few quarters after the measures lem wUl lie between the Prime Min growth a few quarters afte: begin kicking in. Yet, in considering this, speculations resume; if, as many predict, the government's gamble does come to fhiition, what wiU be its response? Naturally, it seems to make sense that the cuts should hold. The current political clime which allows to credibly commit to such measures is rare, and taking as given that reducing the budget deficit is a matter of necessity, there is no reason why swallowing the piU should be deferred to a later, improbable date. That seems like too easy an argument to make, and it is. Popular pressure married to the complaints of the private sector will be difficult to resist in the light of a ruling coalition divided in numerous ideological strands. And it is unlikely that the prob- : Minister and his deputy, who hold close views on the matter, and will rather occur within the each party. A parallel battle is being fought over the conception of fairness. This week, the Institute for Fiscal Studies and Nick Clegg have had a head-off over the definition of the concept, the latter claiming that reducing fairness dowri to an analysis of initial losers and gainers is too simplistic. In this respect, he his right- if only because the notion of what is 'fair' has no value unless tied to a benchmark. For instance, the decrease in public sector jobs is in part justified by the rationale that civil servants were enjoying 'unfair advantages'. Yet it is easy to counter-argue that perhaps the unfairness lies in that the private sector does not provide such securities. In other words, the anomaly could be the lack, not the presence of these employment conditions. To hold a proper discussion, the press needs a common language: the definition of fairness is too slippery to be the ultimate-measure of condemnation or appraisal. In addition, credible criticism must be balanced- no point summoning arguments out of thin air about the near-collapse of the NHS, or of the financial markets without the numbers to back them. ^ Marion Koob Features Editor MANIFESTOS Each year we are given a choice between estabhshment candidates representing various interest groups. It doesn't have to be that way. I am running for Academic Board because its time to move beyond the divisive politics of the past. Our Union is diverse: we are made up of women and men, gays and straights, blacks and whites, latinos and asians, and believers and non-believers. But make no mistake, we are one Union. I will fight everyday for our common values: better teaching quality. As LSE continues to slide in the rankings, it is clear that merely checking boxes for teaching evaluations isn't working. I propose to supplement this with interviewing a sample of students for each class teacher at the end of each term to find out what's wrong and what works. Now's the time to turn the page on the past. Vote ZaFAR and we'll go FAR together. Christopher Wilford COMMITTED TO SEARCH FOR CAUSES! **rm a smooth operator and will ensure YOUR voice is HEARD** 1 have been on staff- student liaison committees in the past and am active in campus life** I will be an effective conduit for your academic concerns and will be transparent, accountable and APPROACHABLE**Any problems with teaching/ course content? You can come to me, I will raise them!** I came to the LSE to complete my post graduate degree because, as the motto of the School states, 1 wish to know the causes of things. LSE has an international reputation in the social sciences: both in the consolidation of existing knowledge and in innovation. We need to ensure this reputation is maintained and enhanced to guarantee that we get value for OUR MONEY; to rest assured that by investing in OUR EDUCATION we are contributing to OUR SOCIETY! Philip Kenworthy *Choice of Assessment Type* - Too many courses at LSE are 100% examination assessment. This anachronistic system victimises students who don't suit the examination format. There should be more options to conduct extended studies/essays as units. *Free Course Packs* - LSE can afford to subsidise the cost of course packs. Where are your fees going? *Course Reps* - Raising profiles of course reps who are supposed to liaise with the department to help address student concerns. Who is your course rep? Most people don't know. Course reps need to be easier to contact and communicate with. *Rigorous Teacher Training* - Being an expert in a subject doesn't make you an expert teacher. More rigorous training for phd students teaching classes would benefits both students and teachers. *Personal Tutors* - Many people barely know their personal tutor. The effectiveness of this pastoral role relies on increasing contact time between students and tutors. MMURE ANS PART TIME STUSENTS OFF CER John Kenny I am John Kenny and I am standing for election as the Mature and Part Time Students' Officer, because I believe I can bring experience of both circumstances to the benefit of students. Had 1 been a student here at the time, I would have fully supported previous campaigns such as The Living Wage Campaign, and Protect our Nursery. I am well aware of the problems that the spending cuts and possible tuition fee rises will bring to mature and part time students and 1 would if elected vigorously defend your interests. I would also actively support the Unions current campaigns on issues like Resits, Wednesday Afternoons Free, Futureproof Planet and Students not Suspects. I hope you will elect me to this role. GENEISl GOWS[ PRESISEIIT Adam Talbot Adam Talbot has been tested before. As Speaker of Georgetown University's Student Association Senate, he faced down rogue bureaucracies, obstinate administrators, and powerful special interests in a relentless campaign to ensure that the voice of the everyday student was heard. During Adam's tenure, the Senate successfully expanded the scope of student activities at Georgetown University, laid the groundwork for a further doubling of student activities money this year, and brought new and exciting events to the student body. This is the track record that Adam will bring to the presidency, and in that capacity he will fight hard to expand the scope of events that cater to General Course students. While we may feel outnumbered, his dauntless attitude will ensure that our small comer of the LSE is heard loud and clear. It's time to embrace proven leadership for the General Course - it's time to make Adam Talbot our president. Graham Brookie As General Course President, I will focus on three things - events, speakers and advocacy. I pledge to plan and facilitate events to keep GC studerjts engaged with the campus community. Ideas include a super bowl party and a competitive beer pong tournament. General Course students are also paying substantially more than UK students to go to LSE. As such, we should have access to more speakers like the recent Howard Da-vies lecture, given the abundance of luminaries on campus. Lastly, we are here for one year. During that time particular students are bound to have issues arise, and I will be more than willing to advocate on your behalf with the GC Dean and other campus bodies in whatever ways that are helpful. I hope to have a great year here at LSE and wish the s^e for my fellow General Coursers. Remember to VOTE BROOKIE.. .Specific Guy, General Course. Monisha Kumar Fellow General Course students. We are looking ahead to a year brimming with potential, and 1 believe that I have the passion and the commitment to realize this potential. If I am elected, I will strive to not only increase interaction within the General Course, but also with British students and the LSE international community. Besides Super Bowl parties and Thanksgiving dinners, I want us to try our skills at cricket, the national sport of England, experience London's alternative culture, and celebrate our internationalism with pot-luck feasts. I have the vision, experience and support to make this, and your ideas, reality. As Programming Chair and Vice-governor of my residential community at my home university, I organized events for over 400 students, every week. I promise to use my dedication, and my knowledge of London, having completed high school here, to enhance your General Course experience. Rohan Batra "As your General Course President my main goal will be to create a GC Yearbook. However, such a goal can only be possible after a years' worth of fun-filled activities for the 300 of us. As such, it is my hope to plan a Lent term party, end of year social, and much more throughout our course here. This is in addition to voicing your concerns at SU meetings and working to improve LSE as a whole (aka more beanbags and hole punchers in the library). I will also work with Dean Hoffman to plan events for the General Course. 1 promise to inform everyone of upcoming GC events through a packed social calendar on Facebook as well as on a General Course website. Together we will have an amazing year in London. The fun has just begun! VOTE for ROHAN BATRA: GENERAL COURSE REPRESENTATIVE, www.rohanbatra.com COURT OF GOVERNORS Arsen Fazio vie ***Imagine LSE in 10 years*** A thriving place of thought and analysis.. .or.. .training camp for preaching tools and cases? An inclusive and open environment for pioneers... or... exclusive club of legacies? A distinguished university and academic brand.. .or.. .JUST ANOTHER GRADUATE SCHOOL? ***Now imagine your vote can change the course taken*** Decisions in the Court of Governors will affect the QUALITY OF YOUR EDUCATION and the LONG-TERM VALUE OF YOUR DEGREE! ***What is to be done*** I advocate quality in teaching and service delivery, sustainability of school policies and collaboration between students, staff and alumni TO PROTECT LSE's STANDING against rushed government actions and international academic competition. ***How 1 can contribute*** I am a 25 years old postgraduate student of Public Management and Governance. I have worked in public sector consulting and served as class representative and Senator back at university. Furthermore, I am an active and passionate social democrat. Jack Tindale Dear student. 1 will keep my manifesto brief as you clearly have a great deal of them to get through.l'm a Second Year Government and History student. In my time as an LSE student, I have served as UGM Chair and been on the executive for several societies. In the former, 1 have promoted fairness and freedom of speech for the entire student body at our main union assembly. I'm aware to the concerns and issues facing the entire student body, not just the loudest. If elected to the Board of Governors, I will continue to act as an opeu and impartial voice for the Student Body here, especially as we move into uncertain time with regards to university funding.Vote for me and vote for fairness, accountability and representation for the student body at the LSE. These are not just meaningless terms, I will act upon them Genuis Garnett My campaign, LSE Moving Forward, is about improving the experience for LSE students in concrete and realistic ways. I will work with the university to improve the usability of LSE For You, Moodle, and LSE Wallet and to create one web-portal where students can access all of this information (plus email) without multiple logins. I will work to expand the number of printers and computer workstations and dramatically increase the number of Sofa-Bean-Bags in the library. 1 would also like to see the university set up and facilitate a voluntary mentorship program between upper year students or recent graduates and incoming students. This would help new students by connecting them with opportunities in the community and providing them with social and personal support. These are practical proposals which can be implemented in the course of a year and which will keep LSE Moving Forward Ashok Kumar Last year you elected me to hold fire to the feet of power. Since then I have been working tirelessly to build the freeze on fees campaign to make LSE what it once was; a progressive institution open to all. Last week the biggest cuts in peacetime history were announced and higher education was one of its victims. The review of higher education funding declared that students should leave university with almost £40,000 worth of debt. LSE students are some of the most dissatisfied with their education. Many leave feeling dejected and disappointed. This is not what the student experience should be. I have already sat on council for a few months (which is made up of a few member of court and makes executive decisions) for the last few months and have seen the way in which it tries to disenfranchise students. As the Education Sabbatical I am perfectly placed to go to court and go to the council and give students your voice back. NUS DELEGATE Eden Sweden Deck I'm Eden (yes, like the paradise garden!) and I'm a fresher running to be one of the LSE delegates for the NUS conference. LSE is a small university. We must be represented FAIRLY amongst bigger student institutions. So it's vital that Vve have strong representatives who ensure our needs are not ignored. I want to campaign for ** A STOP to the rise in fees as recommended in the Browne Report. Our LSESU campaign shows YOU want this. ** Subsidised membership for London students for the Barclays Cycle Hire Scheme (£10 annual membership - reduced from £45). This makes our travel easier, cheaper and greener. ** Cheaper international money transfers for international students. ** My previous experience includes being Head Boy, organising a literary festival critically acclaimed by Time Out, organising charity events and working for the International Red Cross. VOTE FOR EDEN AND LET ME TAKE YOU TO PARADISE. Jason Brown Hi, my name is Jason Brown from Hong Kong and I'm looking to become LSE's representative to the NUS. Your experience with the acronym NUS probably extends no further than pulling out a discount card to purchase goods. Relating this card to the 7 million students represented by the NUS may be hard to grapple, but I am up for the task to incorporate your concerns to the NUS. What I've taken to so far includes; supporting fi-eeze the fees; upholding students not suspects; integrating LSE's international students (streamlining visa applications would be a good start!); pushing for community volunteer societies and consolidating the postgraduate undergraduate divide. I am enthusiastic to discuss your matters and formulate motions to bring to the attention of the NUS at their annual conference next year. Towards this, allow me to ask for your support. Asif Hussain Reasons to vote ASIF HUSSAIN #1: • Post graduates make up more than half the student population at LSE. We need to do more to get them actively involved in student life. 1 will do this by increasing participation at all levels International students make LSE what it is. I will campaign against extortionate fees and for less exploitation/more services for our international students • 1 will continue unabated the campaign against the rise in tuition fees, and also tackle issues of spying on students on campus. • I will restore sanity to an increasingly mad world Don't be Insane- Vote HUSSAfN!" MANIFESTOS CONTINUED OVERIEA VOTE ONLINE AT: https://elections.lse.ac.ulc/elections/ Voting opens: 27th October, 10AM Closes: 28th October, 7PM STUSENT MEMBERS QH THE SOARS OF TRUSTEES ek Amal £>anya "This is the first time that LSE is going to have a PGSO and therefore YOU need to choose wisely. This is my third postgraduate degree and I have eight years of woric experience, which means that 1 can immediately start working towards improving YOUR postgraduate experience at LSE. Wouldn't YOU like postgraduate-focused Careers Fairs where YOUR Advanced Degree and work experience are given importance? Wouldn't YOU like to get career counselling from the Careers Service that is best suited for a postgraduate? If YOU are here at the LSE to pursue a "fast-paced" Masters Degree then why don't YOU have an enhanced book-borrowing capability on YOUR Library Card, and access to course materials, careers information and IT Services in advance? How about postgraduate-focused Social Events, and Societies & Clubs that have a healthy postgraduate membership? 55% students at LSE are postgraduates so wouldn't it be great for YOU to interact more with the remaining 45%? My final question therefore is: Why are YOU still in the shadows? If YOU have read this completely, then most probably YOU are a postgraduate at LSE and YOU need to vote for Abhishek so that 1 can move YOU out of the shadows! Ambreen Malik My name is Ambreen Malik & 1 hail from Pakistan. I am the first female from my family to go to a school, college, university & eventually have a career. I have been a banker for last 8 years before starting my year at LSE. Why I think 1 am worthy of your vote is because my work experience has imparted certain skills to my personality which are needed for this position. Be it the science of convincing the decision makers, the art of negotiation, meeting the deadlines, working under pressure or getting the job done on time. Also being an international student I have better understanding of the issues associated with the PGT students after experiencing the issues myself. From the struggle to get a student visa on time to hike in the tuition fees, ftmding & scholarship related issues, the lack of student accommodation for PGT students or simply being new to the system. Every story is my story.My background has imparted me with the fighting spirit. Giving up is not an option & breaking the glass ceiling is mandatory. 1 strongly believe that when right minds & the right ideas come together, impossible things become possible. Brandon Patty Brandon Patty—For an Equal Voice. As the Postgraduate Sabbatical Officer, 1 will improve the LSE experience so you can focus more on your studies and less on navigating the school's bureaucracy. Agenda; ALL: Increase the IT resources on campus through more printers, scanners and computers plus better information on availability and issues** Improve visa application information and guidance** Increase LSE alumni and employment networking worldwide** Establish an Events Planning Committee to develop and promote events on campus. POSTGRADUATES: Push for exam scores notification as soon as marked from all departments** To aid students in applying for jobs before graduation, create a new classification that will reflect completion of all degree requirements. UNDERGRADUATES: Review alumni postgraduate study fees discount**Call for a guarantee that any fees increase only affect incoming students. Together, we can accomplish this agenda and ensure LSE remains a leading university in the world. Daniel Kroop Hello! My name is Daniel Kroop and 1 would be honored to represent you as the Postgraduate Officer. I grew up in Los Angeles and served for three years as a Harvard University student government executive, where I worked to deliver real improvements in student life. My proudest achievement was coordinating a taxi-sharing program for transportation to the airport before Spring Break. We saved students over $4500! I'm currently the course rep for the MSc in Public Policy, and I also lead society outreach for Freeze the Fees and serve on the International Taskforce to improve the student visa process. I will work to: *Reduce printing costs by adding coordinated printing labs *Create a Postgraduate-Undergraduate Advising Programme *Bring career recruiters to campus *Improve advising on dissertations and programme-switching *Publish a weekly newsletter with free tickets to society events * Arrange mock exams in Lent term *Pilot an LSE April Activities Programme for enrichment sessions in sport, drama, art, and career development *Stand up for women and the LGBT community *Build a united student life with more use of hall bars and karaoke and trivia nights. I ask for your vote and promise that I'll get real things done for all students! Griffin Carpenter Dear voter, if you've made it to this manifesto I won't waste your time with campaign promises or the standard election buzzwords. The simple fact is that no one knows what this year will hold - either you believe a candidate's character or you don't. I'm opinionated, I'm outspoken, and my campaign is based on what I care about most: student issues. You may not always agree with me on every issue and the truth is that in my previous experience as a student representative I've often found myself in the minority on most decisions. Yet these characteristics are the very reason this position was created; to give a voice to graduate students who are a consistent and silent minority in the students' union. With your vote I can be that voice. Democratically yours,***Griffin Carpenter: Building student life, not a CV***" Hardi Shahadu Why Me?I have been active student leader and advocate from the primary to the university levels, always willing to ask the questions mostly avoided, and ever ready to take the risk of challenging the status quo, if the need to do so arises and no one wants to rise to the occasion. Please join me lets change the poor representation of postgrads in LSESU. If Elected? I will initiate the process of transforming the Postgrad Sabb position to a post-study fiill time post to allow for greater attention and effectiveness. Advocate for increment of postgrad representatives to reflect proportion and equality. Initiate a plan to create an independent postgrad student representative body to work for the interest of postgrads within the LSESU framework. Create LSE postgrad-Alumni network to organise functions for the benefit of postgrads. Your Role?Share the ideas, convince friends, and VOTE with all your friends for me, for change, and for LSESU diversity! If it has been thought of, it's possible; if it's possible, it's worth trying; and if it's worth trying, it's worth trying it now! Yes, we can! And we shall! Ivaylo Vasilev HEY JUDE - Three Key Things: 1 (a guarantee) You will get weekly reports in my personal blog studrep. blogspot.com since I take accountability about my work seriously; 2 (activity-wise) I will meet informally postgrad course reps from various departments on a weekly basis to know, discuss and try to help their problems and ideas since they matter; 3 (future dev.) lobby for more postgrad representatives than just the postgrad sabb. officer - DON'T MAKE IT BAD - relentless hammering on students' say in policy-making on matters pertaining to their lives, aka freeze the fees, since nobody seems to ask and they have to see why they should - TAKE A SAD SONG - the status quo - AND MAKE IT BETTER - I've sat on a range of committees as studrep, once introducing on the agenda and pushing through completion the construction of a coffee lounge in my previous university's library. I'm quite opinionated, have published many op-eds in my time, and for six years debated and have also couched as president of a debating society. I take much pride in graduating from the American University in Bulgaria and the Plovdiv English Language School in my home town. Thanks for your time! Vour Birouti NOUR BIROUTI for Post-Grad Sabbatical! There's only a short time to make friends, learn, and explore, and as post-grad representative I'll dedicate myself to help you do that. Here's what I'll fight for: (1) Let's start a post-grad LSE tradition! : An event like "Silly Sports Day", because nothing brings out better camaraderie than obstacle races and tugs of war. Perhaps even undergrads vs post-grads! (2) Allow groups of students to apply for SUBSIDIES FOR ACTIVITIES! (e.g. If you'd like to see a show, send an email to your classmates. If 10 are interested, tickets can be subsidized.) (3) POST-GRAD SOCIAL SPACE - we need a place to nap/chill! ** I promise efficiency, dedication and democracy: *ril make sure a good idea is an implemented idea. *ril LISTEN to what YOU need. *Different people have different concerns and desires. 'II do all 1 can for everyone to get the most out of their LSE experience. *ril bring tonnes of experience (I ran housing communities in university, and was president of several non-profit chapters in graduate school). *WE'VE GOT A GREAT SCHOOL, A GREAT CITY, AND GREAT PEOPLE - LET'S BRING THEM ALL TOGETHER! NOUR - YOUR FRIEND IN THE STUDENTS' UNION! Gabi Kobrin My skills: team worker, good coordinator, passionate and dedicated. My promise investments fair for all Student interest' always put first Accessible/Transparent Easy access/operation for all societies. I am a second year BA Geography student with a strong commitment to our Students Union. I have the determination, strength and skills to keep our executive in check and I will work tirelessly to ensure SU funds are used wisely and for worthwhile causes. Being able to look at the bigger picture and thinking about the future is essential when deciding what the SU should be spending money on! Gaurav Srivastava In short: TRUST me for Trustee! A trustee must have a strong track record of protecting and advocating student interests. This is what I did during my first year on the Students' Union Constitution and Steering Committee. I helped to make the SU more transparent, more helpfiil and more democratic, by creating assemblies to empower EVERY student, particularly under-represented groups, to campaign for change. For this work, I was one of only 6 students to receive the SU's Outstanding Contribution Award. This year, however, with the School in unprecedented financial difficulty, our student experience is at risk, through the fees we pay, the teaching we receive, and the halls we live in. The SU needs Trustees who are in touch with the mainstream of the student body, and are passionate about devoting their time and energy to improve the lives of students at LSE. This is what I will do this year. Khaled Shahin Change for the better! Make your choice the right choice for the Trustee board. Dedicated, Driven and Passionate, trust Khaled Shahin as YOUR Trustee!! My agenda as a member of the board is as follows:- • The students' are what matter, their voice needs to be heard! I will make sure they can speak up and be counted; • Make sure there is a greater student understanding and awareness of the SU's engagements and activities; • The students must be at the forefront of the SU's policies and strategy; To gage student feeling towards SU decisions and hence increase student involvement and say in these decisions- decisions which affect the students directly! • The SU is there for the students, I want to make sure the students are being heard and involved where it matters! For dedication and enthusiasm, make sure you vote Khaled Shahin for the Trustee Board, the ONLY choice to make! Mariya Osadchy A Leader, For a Change: Outspoken: I say what needs to be said. As a student representative on the Board of Trustees I will not waver to speak for the student interest. I am passionate about what I believe and representing what you think: as member of the Board I will push forward progressive consensus. Audacious: I speak out whenever I see inconsistency - unafraid of the consequences of inconvenient truths. I ardently believe in economically sustainable and progressive projects. Responsible for overseeing LSESU-finance, I will ensure that long-term sustainability and student interest coincide. Engaged: I care about the student - present and future - and will remain approachable and accessible. I will represent the student voice in both public forums - like the UGM and The Beaver - and in private forums - as member of the Board of Trustees. Transparency is key to keeping the Union accountable to the students of the LSE. POmil!U!!TE SSSSSTieAl imCEII etNTl! Mir Rahimi "Mir For You!!! Why me? Because I believe in you! I believe you have the power to actualise your potential and achieve your goals. I believe you are the most talented and hardworking individuals who can change the world for the better. Some of you have travelled thousands of miles and have paid tens of thousands of pounds to study here. Also, some of you have put yourselves in huge debt (like me) in a hope that this experience would enable you to achieve and fulfil your dreams. But do we get the right support and attention? Despite that LSE is a world class institution; I believe the majority of us get forgotten and neglected. Therefore, I am promising to fight for the following, so we all get the right value for our time, effort and money, NOW!!! THIS YEAR. What we plan? Improved teaching quality i.e. smaller class sizes; Free text books; Free printing materials; Better Career Service; Departmental Common Room. How we do? Strong team of postgraduates; Monthly open meeting. My Experience: Former Student Union President; Student Ambassador for national students; Activity Leader/ Tutor for international students. Seba Sio I'm Seba Wali Sio, an MSc Student in Law and Accounting. Like so many of you, I come from a multicultural background. I'm from Kenya but I've lived in the US (NY state), Paris as well as Madrid. I've worked with an NGO called Success for Africa which deals with development and empowerment of the youth and I've worked with UNWTO (United Nations World Tourism Organisation). I believe this experience has taught me diverse inter-personal communication skills and I consider myself very approachable. I believe I'm best suited to be your post-graduate representative because I have an international background and experience with working for people from all over the world. I work well with a diverse crowd, but more importantly, it is also something I enjoy. What 1 can offer is someone to come to if you ever have a problem and if you want to chat about anything. I'll be your "go to person". Since this is a new position I want to make the most of it, not only to deal with queries you maybe be facing at LSE, but also rely on your input to shape the position into something truly useful for future generations to come. Zack Beauchamp Let's be honest: there really aren't very many events where postgraduate students can meet each other. Sure, there was that one party at the beginning of the year, but.. .seriously? One party? Where the music was impossibly loud in the *talking* room? Sure, there's class, but that way you only really meet people in your program. And just sitting down at George IV, while fiin, can get old. So as your postgraduate representative, I'll fix that. I'll work with the SU and the Administration to ensure that postgraduates will have new opportunities to socialize with each other (and, of course, drink cheaply). Everyone likes fun things (with cheap alcohol), so I'll get them to you. Also, postgrads tend to like cheap things, which would imply we would like the LSE gym. Unfortunately, the LSE gym is so cheap as to be a borderline safety habit. We need new equipment. I'll work to increase funding, so those of us who don't want to pay for a private gym (and the AU kids) can get our money's worth. I'll also work on the main SU campaigns, like the other candidates. But only I bring the party and the sports. Asif Hussain See manifesto from NUS Delegate* Sport Contact Beaver Sports sports^thebeaveronline.co.uk 02079556705 19 26 October 2010 i The Beaver Va va voom at Veirve One jring to mle them all, and in the darkness (of a Verve cavern) bind them Perhaps the most comedic moment of last Wednesday was the was-it-wasn't-it fight between the rugby club and FC in the Tuns. Forming a human barricade around the karaoke machine just as FC's 'Stand By Me' was being played, rugby managed through sheer brute force and superior weight to stop any footballers reaching the microphone. Drinks were thrown, shirts were torn and just as, symbolically enough, each club captain was squaring up to each-other, resident DJ John muted the song. Apparently his glasses had been broken. Add to this screaming netball girls, and the picture is complete. But, true to LSE form, no actual battle took place. These bitter relations were made manifest again on Friday night at Crush, albeit through different protagonists, namely a Geordie gym monkey and a quasi-American lacrosse player. Preceded by claims of (again) shirt ripping, drink throwing and arguments over Prince Main of Orange, scrappy comments about each-other's girlfriends led to a fracas on the 91 bus. Hero Olamulleiyoghurt almost managed to keep the (vastly stronger) rugby representative at bay, but though he had control of the latter's hands, his teeth were still free. Lacrosse's key player now has patches of hair missing and a much deflated ego. One would be too quick to assume, however, that the 'Lad' FC is quickly becoming 'the most hated club in the AU' (direct netball quote). Seemingly, we love to hate them, since afore-mentioned club captain managed to rack up an impressive four pulls a few Wednesdays ago. GG would propose these are mere innocent freshers, however, and the shine of the FC is rapidly diminishing. Speaking of crannies, a certain netbaU fresher straight out of the OC shamed herself last Wednesday on that same sofa. If babies could be made fiUly clothed, a Russo-American AU baby would most certainly be on the way. Not content with these PDAs, they proceeded back to his, where she chundered everjwhar and was then carted off home in a cab. Further attempts on her part to bed this Russian pom star on Friday were similarly ill-fated. Since libel have disallowed the print of the photographic evidence from Wednesday, GG can simply recommend you stalk facebook until you see it before she reports it for her knickers being on show. It has come to GG's attention the existence of a love triangle worthy of a place in Albert Square. The points of the triangle consisting of certain 4th team football player with an GNVQ in hair-dressing entirely funded by GHD straightening irons, and two Caledonian Road residents and 6th team NetbaU BFFs. His attempts to sneak into the bedroom of a well knovm Scouse footballer's wet-dream were rebuked. But ever the optimist, after failing to woo the first future-HoUyoaks starlet, he valianlty attempted to strut his way into the adjacent bedroom, a territory he had already animalistically marked in a previous week. GG hears the words "piss off" were uttered, and Sri Lanka's own aspiring Rusell Brand was sleeping alone. GG overheard Edward Scissorhand's explanation for his lack of any sort of conversion, "I was juggling too many balls and managed to drop them all". Hopefully his ball skills are not so bad on the pitch. GG suspects that this Wednesday at Temple Walkabout could provide a welcome distraction to the current tensions and unite the AU against a common enemy - the Poly. No doubt the NetbaU club wiU do what the do best: dress up themselves colourfully and provocatively. Yet no matter how suggestively the LSE girls wiU look in fancy-dress, they're positively angels in comparison to the Poly skets. The choice is yours boys... neet in 3 Tttns 7:30pm for an evening t>f revelry In fantru Jress rollowe^ a ghostly trip to Temple \A/al|a|^out £3 ^ntry on the «Ioor with rar^ W Athletics Union WAUfisoyf Five things I hate about people who play FIFA way too much... J. Fellas 1. WeU done you.'ve scored. Now can you stop celebrating in an annoyingly obnoxious way? No cartwheels and back-flips. Most of aU no running up to the halfway line, and back... and then back again. It is not only stupid; but you deserve to win a medal in the poo-poo Olympics for being a moron, and the medal is made of turd. 2. Didn't know we had Andy Townsend in the room. You are not a commentator; you don't know the players in real life so stop caUing Woodgate, "Woody" and KeweU, "Hariy". I will shove the controUer in your pie hole and we won't hear a peep out of you again. 3. The "I haven't played in a while so I might be rubbish" line, is wearing thin. Once a player always a player. It might make you think you look good when you are thumping me as BurrJey but I know you practice secretly at night. 4.1 don't care if PES is better than Fifa. I enjoy being able to get Liam Lawrence to bring it down the wing. Playing as Bibier Bogba is boring. I have bought Fifa now and wiU continue to play it even if it sucks away at my soul. Finally... 5. It's injury time. 93rd minute. Goal kick, you quickly pass the baU out. The goalkeeper messes it up. Darren Bent scores. We've all been there, you look like a plank, your housemate is cheering in your face and even Bento is pointing out at the screen laughing at you. What's worse, it's your own fault. What a waste of time, I could have been in C120 pretending to do work this whole bleeding time. LSE SPORT RESULTS Attach: fil i|^ AthI Athletics Union Running:- I London Colleges League race 1 men's (Smiles);lst R.Axe U ni( (Brunei!) 25.56, 16th.R.Anderson 27.38, 48thLDa2on 30.55, 52nd N.Converse 31.08 a few scconds ago • Comment Like Promote A'fK| LSE Athletics Union Men's Rugby rjLI II LSE Rugby 1st XV 15-17 Essex 1st XV UmK about a minute ago Comment Like Promote AthI Uni( AthI Unl( AthI Uni( AthI Unit LSE Athletics Union Football: LSE 1st XI 6-1 LSE 2s XI LSE 4th XI 2-1 KCLMS 3rd XI LSE 5th XI 2-2 RUMS 2nd XI LSE 6th XI 4-1 Goldsmiths 2nd XI LSE 7th XI 2-7 Kings Sth XI about a minute ago Comment Like Promote LSE Athletics Union Mixed Lacrosse: LSE 7-0 Royal Holloway 2 minutes ago Comment Like Promote LSE Athletics Union Women's Basketball LSE Ist 31-46 Royal Holloway 3 minutes ago Comment ¦ Like Promote LSE Athletics Union Netball LSE Netball 1st 37 -29 Imperial 1st LSE Netball 6th 42-6 LSE Netbali 1st LSE Netball 2nd 42-17 Buckinghamshire 2nd 3 minutes ago Comment Like Promote AthI Uni( LSE Athletics Union Mixed Lacrosse:LSE 7-0 Royal Holloway 4 minutes ago Comment tike Promote S® pxsx^ gfi teS G&''gT(§GD[iDflg aSiS mm & The Beaver I 26 October 2010 Inside: Gossip Gollum and a plethora of spoiling results Yet another joke about cocl«... Alex Avolonitis The dawn of a new era as Nobel Prize winning Snavonalapopalopalides takes over the badminton club. For the first time in years, a multi-cultural and multi-talented committee has taken its reign on the badminton club, and soon, the AU. Our resident big boy, Matthew De Jesus, rolling under the preferred name of Zeus in recent years has once again joined the team, using his exemplary racquet skills as well as intimidating posture to scare away the multitude of poly opponents that LSE Badminton face each season, especially the archetypical poly opponent of St Tarts. There are rumours in the mix of this unconventional badminton player/'rugby player to be' is training for Mrs LSE. The committee, including Neil '92% in Econ B' Shah has had an absolute tour this year with a record 107 people at the AU Welcome Party- impressive, I must say. Guiding initiations, Shah attempted to comply with the ever hilarious Alcohol Policy on the teams' fresher's- of which, there are only two. Though, they do too, deserve a special mention, if not for their ASBO antics, mooning in front of the NAB, or press-up races in the street, then for their half decent racquet expertise, which will most probably win the league this year. Our resident big boy, Matthew De Jesus.. .has once again joined the team, using his exemplary racquet skills as well as intimidating posture to scare away the multitude of pofy^-opponents that LSE Badminton face each season A new dawn for the club has seen a strong ladies team, once again. With the loss of our International Malaysian Champion, we have been graced with the presence of a Czech Model- with whom the rugby team were no less than impressed on Wednesday. Maz Fletcher... watch out! On to serious business now... With a minor demise of the men's team last year, they are back with vengeance. Plapng Queen 'Poly' Maiy this week, with success, they are set to continue on into Division One next year. With two fantastic ad- i ditions to the team, in the form of Belgian International (who knew they were good at badminton? He's actually Indian, don't worry), and a First Class county player, in the form of Dom Winter The Ladies team, championing the Ladies Division One SE Conference for the past two years, is set for another great season. With UCL and Gimperial posing the biggest challenge, there's been a thorough training schedule for all those involved. Our first match against Kings will prove a proud victory! Despite names that most of us can't pronounce, and skills that most of us can't compare, this niche sport welcomes an impeccable year of social events, games, and a reasonable amount of banter. Pictures, no doubt, speak louder than words... LSE Go-Karting off to a fast start Joe Harris Wednesday afternoon was a day for the LSE history books. It was the first time a Go-Karting team had competed under the joyous banner of "The Beaver". Four heroic figures stepped up to the mark and decided to risk everything for Howard Davies' fine institution. We took part in the academic year's first British University Karting Championship test day on a sunny Wednesday afternoon at Rye House Raceway in Hertfordshire. After being publically humiliated by being named and shamed as the 'new team on the block' we got off A go-karting enthusiast, having the time of his life to a good start. The Go-Karts the BUKC uses are direct drive two stroke racing karts which accelerate from 5-60 mph in 4.6 seconds - they take a bit of getting used to! Everyone in the team had some magnificent spins - Zbigniev Janic won the award for the best off when he went careering off into the grass at the hairpin - twice! Naturally, the 'cold tires' were wholly responsible for the various spins. During the second session there were no offs and the team managed to set some fast times. Zibi, the club's esteemed 'Health and Safety' officer managed to put his earlier off roading experience behind him and set LSE's fastest lap time by a whisker - he not be so fortunate next time! .* LSE Karting is setting its sights on becoming the BUKC's best novice team this academic year - and with times similar to Wednesday's it is a feasible task! LSE's BUKC heroes will be returning to do some more testing vsrith the racing karts in mid-November. LSE Karting also organises friendly 'arrive and drive' sessions with other London universities in the metropolis - anyone is more than welcome to join and have a good time. A big thankyou to Harriette Rothwell who was a lynchpin in getting the society up and running. Other go-kartiiig enthusiasts, also having the time of their lives. Blood, sweat and...balls Joanna Hirst Mel pulled an awesome 3 pointer. At the game on Saturday we were expecting full frontal rape at the hands of Royal Hollow-gay, but we managed to come out unhurt, and with a surprisingly good score! We saw Nabila tear up the court with her streetball style, and newcomer pro Nat's calm attitude and wisdom proved to be a great addition to the team. Speaking of Mel's pulls, she is also a great player off the court. Incest between the men's and women's team is rife once It has been an eventfiil first three weeks for women's basketball. Getting to know the new team, trying to drag our postgrads out of the caves they live in, showing our General Course kiddies what sambuca is and how to abuse it... its all too easy to forget about the sport itself. We haven't started off the season that well, but that being said we have seen some serious drama! First game saw Israeli ball-chaser Efi suffer the loss of a tooth, and stitches in the chin at the hands of a pesky art student. That same match my pathetic excuse for an injury (a cut finger), decided to bleed profiisely, causing my white shorts to look like aunty flow had come for a serious visit. The second game saw some impressive skills- Kelly showed us her aggressive side with a mean 2nd half comeback, and again, as she was spotted locking lips with newly arrived first team Yank Mr Payne. Of course resident paparazzo Michele was there to get plenty of photo evidence, including some quite incriminating photos of a certain 4th team footballer... Then there came Bajfwatch, the perfect excuse for us to walk down Kingsway dressed like absolute slags. Fun. I saw three people doing the walk of shame in Baywatch gear- that's how you know it was a good one! Jen celebrated her 20th that night by doing triple sambuca shots and sporting an awesome Asian flush. The permanent marker also decided to come out to play! Last year Michele and I made it a basketball tradition to bring one out to Zoo bar, and this year it is back. We managed to tattoo 'I love penis' on a couple of luclgf rugby and netball girls. We sincerely hope they enjoyed going to class on Thursday with that on their arm/back/ chest! Halloween next week, I wonder who I'll see walking around campus dressed as Cat in the Hat when I go to my 10AM class... LSE 1st XI still first class Tom Gay (Besty) The second ULU Premier League weekend of the season saw a derby match-up as the is faced the 2s at Berry-lands. With 1st team Captain Casimo hailing the 2S as the best 2nd squad he'd seen in his time at LSE, and rumours of a 2nd team meeting to prepare for the fixture, no-one was taking this lightly. Heavy hail during the warm-ups left the 2s soaking wet, although the ist's kit ended up cleaner and drier than goalkeeper Vik had left it after his lacklustre job at the launderette. The weather also made the pitch slick, and the opening half hour saw is dominate possession before letting the 2s back into it, who had numerous shots from the edge of the box. But a composed finish from Besty after good play from Harry Licence and Matt Roderick down the left ten minutes from half time left the is with a deserved lead at the break. The 2s came out fighting in the second half and it was a matter of minutes before a burst of pace and one-on-one slotted finish from Bach leveDed the scores. However, the 2s' jubilation was as short-lived as the is' anxiety as Sean Farrar tapped in from close range after a scramble from a comer moments later to make it 2-1 to the IS. Despite their best efforts the 2s never recovered from this instant reply and fans and players alike were left bewildered when Sean Farrar scored again, with an accidental header to double his season's tally. Sean himself was not surprised - "I used to be a striker for a top Northern club", he claimed. The final 30 minutes saw the tackles fly in from both sides and it was easy to forget that we were all from the same university. Several debateable decisions from various stand-in referees caused controversy, but three more goals from the IS put the result beyond doubt. The first a cool finish from Licence after a defence-splitting ball from Matt Roderick, then a drilled finish from super-sub Hendrik Sundvik (who came close to a sending off minutes later for concealing a weapon in his shorts - it turned out to be his door handle from halls), and finally a Jack Roberts goal firom short range with the use of a one-two off the 2s goalkeeper. So a 6-1 victory for a dominant is, but the potential shown by the 2S despite the score line stands them in good stead for their own ULU campaign. Saturday 30tti October 10:30pm - Bam Join Us for a Terrifyinglv Good night of... Indie, Alternative. Electro, Pop. Be Aghast at Our Unfeasibiy Cheap Drinks and Murderously Compete for Our Special Halloween Costume Prize C3 All Night for those of you in Fancy Dress £4 with a Flyer/ NUS Before Midnight £5 with a Flyer After Midnight £7 Without y-:- jci.so 99M* @ The Quad, Houghton Street, Holborn, London,WC2A 2AE ^7 Hatbom Portueai Strctt ^^Charism Cross ^Tempfo wv^yA/'.pcf/jscene.eu