Sydney on a bicycle.

I’ve been one of the News Editors of this illustrious paper for sixteen issues now – sixteen weekends spent in varying degrees of productivity in our little office, East Building 204. At some point during the first week I volunteered to write an article on the first UGM of the year and somehow it transcended into this ever-bashed position.

Now, traditionally, I’m supposed to tell you all the reasons why you should care about our paper or student politics or turn this into a platform for an upcoming Students’ Union election. I have been reluctant to write for any other section besides News, partly out of sheer exhaustion and, though mindful of the idiocy of saying that anything we write is completely unbiased since by virtue of including them we are presenting them as worthwhile or at the very least, better than white space, I have always treated my ideologies as a somewhat private pastime, reserved for ranty soliloquies and late night viewings of the Daily Show.

Of course, I have strong beliefs, but I have always felt that the air of impartiality that News requires was more important. I also attended an absurd amount of schools where everything was “discussed” and I stopped believing in productive debates with most members of my age group or older – a six year old, on the other hand, as demonstrated by Kony 2012, is much more malleable.

So what is the point of this faux-balance? Well, for one, the UGM is ever-entertaining if you walk in with no stance and watch the two sides (because there are always two) draw blood over semantic issues while fighting the good fight. Jack Tindale is responsible for about 78 per cent of the comic relief, but no worries, he has another year to make you giggle.

I came to the LSE from a small, overly-liberal (even for lil’ old bleedin’ heart me) university in the middle of lower Manhattan. The majority of the student body was political. They occupied Wall Street and then they moved on up to Fourteenth Street. No one cared about the Student Senate, our version of the Students’ Union, which was inherently more dysfunctional and less democratic, because everyone was too busy saving the world through some combination of documentary-filmaking/blogging/nude-modern-dancing/postmodernism.

LSE seemed like a good idea, a last minute whim as all my ideas are, so I dropped out of school for the year, quit my job  and moved to London. It had both the promise of academic rigour and the socially progressive stance that I still wasn’t quite ready to let go of. I was less in it for the “Let’s See Europe” aspect and saw it more as a trial run at a “real” school that  would actually force me to focus on something.

Lo and behold the short attention span of the twenty year old, I fell out of love with Economics when people started calling it a science and decided to stick with Anthropology. Never having had to focus all my attention on one subject area and quickly disenchanted by the numerous kids in suits, cabin fever set in and I took up journalism. My year at LSE has been increasingly defined by my time behind our feckless office computers. Pseudo-journalists that we may be, we fit in well with the pseudo-entrepreneurs, pseudo-politicians, pseudo-anarchists, and let us not forgot the great silent majority, the future pseudo-evil bankers of the world.

Anyway, back to my point,  politics as a silent pastime. It’s been fun being “opinion-less” but, now that this is my last chance to be libelled, as I’ve been threatened with by six separate students/institutions over the last two terms (not least by Jason Wong who threatened to stick his lawyers – plural – on me at one in the morning), here are a couple of things I know, but can’t prove, from my time at the LSE. Where else but in Comment may I make wild, unfounded assessments without losing my much-lauded journalistic integrity?

One, there is a large python that roams the  campus. I haven’t been able to find it, but my ophidiophobia has been on high alert.

Two, the Tata Group, an Indian conglomeration, is evil. The rest of this comment article was utter filler – let me be clear: Tata is bad news, pun intended. It’s probably no worse than any other large conglomeration but, while it is upheld as a beacon of love and virtue by those at the LSE who profit from its funding, it has been disparaged by many an academic and conspiracy theorist. Their family-oriented, PR enhanced image has been diminished by a union assassination in 1993 and clever hiring semantics. After spending hours reading about unsolved murders near their plants or on territories they wished to build on, I’ve decided they are questionable, at best. Even after harassing various staff members at the Telegraph in Calcutta – drawing on both no-sleep-‘till-print-time and pestering skills enhanced, but not created, by the Beaver- my beliefs were still unprovable. But then again, so is everything that comes out of Newt Gingrich’s mouth and no one has stopped him yet.

I am an alumni of LSE (Stuart McPhail BSc (Econ) 1982). I wandered through Houghton Street on a little nostalgia trip a couple of weeks ago and came upon a little demo by what I presume to be the Palestinian Society.  I wanted to go through the “barrier” and had an interesting chat with a good humoured and courteous protestor. He explained why they were there and it is clear their intent was purely peaceful.

I understand that things degenerated when a group started throwing things at them. This is a great pity in my view and I do hope that such protests are not discouraged as a result. They had a perfect right to do what they were doing and those who disrupted it should show some respect for other people’s right to express themselves in a way which does not intimidate others.

Those chucking water bombs and intimidating peaceful protestors would find a warm welcome in the Likud Party in Israel, which shows an equal disdain for the rights and dignity of those who do not share their squalid and mean spirited outlook on life.

Yours faithfully,

Stuart McPhail

As I watched the distressing images of a family living in a storm drain under Las Vegas, I was reminded of the 1990s BBC political drama House of Cards. You might well wonder what a fictional BBC series has got to do with extreme poverty. You might also think that, by using this comparison, I am trivialising a deadly serious societal issue. You might well think that, but in the eternal words of Francis Urquhart (the protagonist from House of Cards played by Ian Richardson): “I couldn’t possibly comment.”

The basic plot of House of Cards follows a similar line to that of Shakespeare’s Richard III: an arch-Machiavellian politician narrates his quest for absolute power. Like many Renaissance-inspired productions, the protagonist draws the audience into his misdeeds: by the end of the first series you feel a sort of paternal love for Mr Urquhart. The beauty of House of Cards, and where all links to Shakespeare end, is its relevance to modern history and politics. The setting is post-Thatcherite Britain, an imaginary world where the Conservative Party rules into the sunset without the emergence of New Labour.

Like Thatcher, Urquhart is portrayed as a staunch “one-nation conservative” in the Burkeian tradition. Ironically, House of Cards was filmed at a time when this political philosophy was dying out across the world. It is only recently that we have again seen the rise of the “one-nation” view in Britain and most obviously in America. While in the UK Burkeianism is still relatively marginalised, confined mainly to the UK Independence Party, in the US these conservative ideals have recently come to the fore in the Republican Party presidential primaries. Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich are the epitome of the new-style “one-nation conservatives.” Unfortunately for the educated minds of LSE students, it is all too easy to make fun of Santorum and Gingrich. But their politics could prove to be a dangerous reincarnation of those professed by Urquhart if they were given power.

Prime Minister Urquhart, in the second series of House of Cards, made policies that would doubtless draw a standing ovation from a Republican Convention this summer. Urquhart’s reintroduction of national service mirrors Gingrich’s suggestion that teenagers should become toilet cleaners to learn discipline. Meanwhile, a complete contempt for those lower in society is the hallmark of Urquhart’s government. In the second series, Urquhart’s government policy is praised because it commands the loyalty of 40 per cent of the electorate and therefore does not need the support of the underclasses.

Worryingly, this seems to apply as much to the fictional Conservative Party as it does to the very real, present day Republicans. Interviewed for Panorama, the head of the Heritage Foundation (a right-wing Washington think-tank), said the plight of the millions of Americans suffering disgusting levels of poverty across the country was not his concern and probably does not exist.

In the final series of House of Cards, a challenge to Urquhart appears in the form of the wickedly named Tom Makepeace. Tom’s concern at the destruction of British social fabric under Urquhart prompts “Makepeace to Makewar.” It is extremely sad that Mr Makepeace appears so late into Urquhart’s reign of terror. The Republican Party could do with such a character now in the face of the charge of the Tea Party.

Of course, if you have watched House of Cards, you will know that Urquhart would be outraged at being compared to men and women who do not believe in global warming or evolution (and most importantly aren’t good upstanding Englishmen). Nevertheless, I fear that the effects of a “President Santorum” or “President Gingrich” regime would be horrifically similar to that of Francis Urquhart’s. Thankfully, for the sake of humanity, the prospect of Santorum or Gingrich ever wielding serious power is happily slipping away into the history books.

This article is a humorous study of politics, poverty and 1990s British television: an unusual trio to say the least. But the issue of poverty in both the USA and the UK does need serious attention. Perhaps by watching House of Cards you will see the risks of abandoning people to poverty without compassionate state help.

Perhaps, also, the re-emergence of “one-nation conservatism” in the Republican Party is the last hurrah of an outdated political philosophy. It is probably time to forget Burkeian ideas in the modern liberal world. As Urquhart said about Margaret Thatcher, nothing lasts forever.

In fact, Sandel could not be any more different than the amoral Mr Burns. Sandel is a Professor who has spent most of his life disseminating ideas of justice. He is basically the Anti-Burns. Sandel’s aforementioned course on Justice has brought him worldwide recognition. Every year, over one thousand undergraduates crowd together in Harvard’s largest lecture theatre to attend Sandel’s lectures. Some even have to be turned away due to the popularity of the course. Consequently, it was turned into an online lecture series and broadcast on television in the US. Instead of lecturing, Sandel facilitates dialogue between members of the audience. No PowerPoint. No notes. He calls it a “civic experiment in public philosophy” as he picks people who raise their hands in response to a series of his questions on political issues.

In his lecture at the LSE, Sandel addressed the issue of whether huge income gaps can ever be fair. During a period of recession, when public spending is cut and bonuses are highly controversial, it is very topical to discuss this. The first point the audience discussed was the qualities which should determine pay. One participant suggested that income should depend on skill, intelligence and creativity. Three arguments were drawn out: justice and fair pay should depend either on 1) effort and hard work, 2) contribution to well-being or 3) the demands of the market (aggregated choices of consumers), e.g. if many fans choose to pay to see Rooney play for United, why shouldn’t he earn a lot? But the objection was raised that the talents you inherently possess are not reflective of your own achievement. So why should society discriminate against you by paying you significantly less if you were not born with epic football skills?

In the second part of the discussion, it was pointed out that markets do not pass judgement on the intrinsic value of activities. I was surprised that the intrinsic difference between the job of a nurse and that of a banker was only reflected upon one hour into the debate. One of the first thoughts I expected people to voice was that, put simply, one saves lives while the other makes money. The other thought I had when I saw the title of Sandel’s lecture was influenced by the fact that I had just come out of a brilliant lecture on gender representation by Shaku Banaji. I wondered whether the title of the lecture evoked the image of a male banker versus a female nurse. Interestingly, this issue of gender entered the discussion only few minutes into the debate.

Moreover, the point was raised that people start out in life from different levels of wealth and educational opportunity. Sandel suggested the following scenario: if we were able to ensure structures of advancement and equal opportunities for those from an underprivileged background, would that remove our objections to an income gap? Would a pay difference then be fair? Some said yes, while others said no because two dimensions of luck remain: firstly, our skills can still be regarded as a matter of good luck and, secondly, it is not guaranteed that society will value our particular talent or skill. Therefore, as Sandel concluded, we have drawn out different competing principles about what fairness means in relation to differences in income.

I had hoped to hear more of Sandel’s own philosophical theories and I would have preferred him to pinpoint the theories and concepts behind the discussion. However, this might not have appealed to a broader audience, which is the aim of his lecture series. Therefore, I was more fascinated with the delivery of his lecture than the content. Rarely have I experienced such a great facilitation of discussion. Sandel remembered the names of people in his audience, deserving of applause in itself. Throughout the lecture, Sandel came across as very humble and softly-spoken, despite being one of the dons in political philosophy.

Sandel’s lecture was a version of deliberative democracy. Through the dialogical method of Socrates, he connected common sense arguments with political philosophy. You might say that the downside to such a deliberative lecture is that you might end up hearing uninformed opinions and people speaking nonsense. This is a risk that Sandel is willing to take and is more than capable of handling in order to facilitate proper discussion. He succeeded in showing that political philosophy is not remote or abstract but instead transpires in our everyday understanding of politics. I wonder if participating in Sandel’s lecture will inspire me to spontaneously start a debate when I read his new book, “What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets,” on the Northern Line.

The various left candidates have stood on a platform of continuing demonstrations and acts of anti-institutional public protest, but this platform demands engagement of the student body. An election based on gimmicks after two full years of that treatment proved that engagement to be utterly absent. We are as apathetic and materialistic as ever.

Yet the centrists, and the new Sabbs, have not won; their victory has little to do with their policies. But this can change. To do so, they must answer the first question of student politics: “why should we care about our Student’ Union?” There is only one correct answer: because your Students’ Union cares about you. There are three things they can do to prove it.

First, the Sabbs must give students greater opportunity to participate in the Students’ Union’s work. Students will not show up to an Assembly where they mill about or listen to speeches. They need structure and something to which they can aspire. The Ethics Campaign vanished into thin air because no one felt they were really contributing anything to it; the next priority campaign needs to actively create positions for students to fill and have regular meetings to keep them engaged. In addition, the Students’ Union must explain in a clear and simple way how its utterly byzantine structure works. You shouldn’t need at least a degree in politics to figure it out.

Likewise, the UGM needs a thorough house-cleaning. Motions should be submitted from an easily accessible online form and the process for their submission should be completely transparent. The UGM should also be powerful: we need to see that what we decide actually changes the school. If you knew that every Thursday at 1pm you could take your lunch to the Old Theatre and actually change things you care about, the room would be packed to the rafters.

Students cannot participate when they don’t know what’s going on, so the Sabbs should make all Trustees meetings open by default, publish minutes within 24 hours of any Union meeting they hold, and routinely solicit student feedback on the questions of the day. Jason Wong may be a cretin, but he has a point: there is no excuse for not establishing at least a presumption that all Union financial and governance documents are published to the student body.

Transparency is part of the second challenge: communication. This is a problem of content, not volume. The Union must communicate clearly both (a) how student feedback is leading to actual policy change and (b) that when you have a problem, the Union can fix it. “This week,” the emails could begin, “this is what we did for you.” Communication must be short, sharp, to the point. The website should be less cluttered, invariably up to date, and focused on services. It should also solicit specific feedback; not “give us your thoughts” but “here is our question, answer it and what we do will change.”

Likewise, all Officers in the Union would be wise to make a point of meeting with students outside the Union hack zone as much as they can. Standing on Houghton Street won’t do it – you have to actually reach out to people. There is no reason why the A&D Officer cannot arrange a cup of tea with the head of every single society on campus (for £26,000 p.a., I think they can pull a few weekends) once a term. There is no reason why the Community and Welfare Officer cannot meet once a week with Halls Presidents. There are a few hundred course representatives at the School, which should fill Duncan McKenna’s appointments card nicely. It is in these kinds of interactions that the Union can build credibility and communicate effectively.

Finally, the Union must, in its communication and action, remember that it is a charity. A charity exists to serve. The Union must be the Dobby of our School – always there to help. The far left forgot that as it raced ahead with plans of occupation and revolution, leaving students behind. The centre must re-engage them. If it does not, LSE students will be justified in plumbing for revolution once again.

The new proposals, which will be presented to Parliament on 15th March include limiting to five years the amount of time international students can stay on degree level courses (with some exceptions), and increasing the amount of maintenance funds students are required to have in their bank account.

Perhaps the most problematic proposal is the imminent removal of the Post Study Work Visa (PSW) on 5th April. This provision allowed international students to apply for a visa to remain in the UK for up to two years after graduation. For some students, the opportunity to work in this country after their studies was a crucial factor in their decision to come to study in the UK. Its removal is likely to discourage some international students from applying to British universities. In fact, Australia recently attempted a similar experiment by tightening its visa system and had to reverse its decision due to a dramatic drop in applications.

Ironically, these changes are coming at a time when many departments in universities across the UK are desperate to attract more international students (who pay higher fees) to compensate for a sharp decline in government funding.

International students already face many difficulties under the present regulations. If you are not familiar with this experience yourself, ask some of your classmates from overseas about their UK immigration stories. You are bound to hear about ever-rising visa fees, constant changes in regulations and visa delays that cause many students to miss the start of term. Some international students have to register with the police regularly and all face extremely limited working rights.

It is time for international students to stand up and say “no” to further immigration changes in a strong, united voice. The LSE Students’ Union is joining a national, social media-based campaign to make a final push against the removal of the PSW this April. The campaign aims to paint a narrative about student immigration in the UK by collecting as many personal stories as possible from international students across the country and sending these testimonials to top government policymakers.

As part of this campaign, international students are encouraged to write about their experience with the UKBA, the visa system and immigration regulations in general. They are also prompted to explain how they feel they have contributed to their university and the local community. Home and EU students who believe they have benefited from having international students at their institution are also strongly encouraged to share their story on the wall of the campaign’s Facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/IntCampaign).

“International Students against UK Immigration Changes” is a campaign launched by the NUS International Students’ Campaign and backed by the UK Council for International Student Affairs (UKCISA). Here at the LSE, both the School and the Students’ Union have the concerns of international students at heart, since they form a very important part of the student body and are a key element of our university’s identity. The International Student Immigration Service (ISIS) will be working to decipher the details of the new laws as soon as they are made public and will organise information sessions to explain these changes to international students. The Students’ Union is working to mobilise international students, as well as home and EU students who see the benefit of studying in a nationally diverse environment, to join the campaign.

If you also believe that international students are a true asset for our universities and do not deserve to be targeted in this way by the government, please stop by our stall this Thursday 15th March on Houghton Street, share your story on paper or on video and join the campaign!

As a Catholic gay man of Filipino heritage with a background in community organising, there is absolutely nothing about the Archbishop’s diatribe that I have not heard before. This letter is a reverberation of the themes ran by the anti-marriage equality camp that sponsored California’s Proposition 8 in 2008, which passed, by a slim margin, a constitutional amendment eliminating rights of same-sex couples to marry. As the rest of the United States basked in the “post-racial America” moment after electing President Barack Obama, California seemed to have stood stunned in shock and disappointment.

While the Mormon Church’s influence mostly dominated the resulting religious blame game, the Roman Catholic Church’s role in the passage of the ballot initiative was not a secret matter. Many of the parishes took an active role, from pontificating at every mass and printing pro-Proposition 8 literature, to crafting policy papers and donating outrageous sums of money to the campaign.

The same themes contained within the Archbishop’s letter ran rampant through the Proposition 8 religious propaganda: the family is the bedrock of the society; protect the tradition of marriage; do not redefine marriage; marriage is for procreation; children deserve a mother and a father; gay marriage will destroy our civilization; homosexuality is unnatural, hence gay marriage is unnatural; gay people already have equal rights.

The ensuing legal trials, however, demonstrated the flimsy and almost comical reasoning behind these claims. Experts’ findings from the fields of history, psychology, economics, and political science chipped away at the moral indignation disguised as factual evidence presented by the anti-equality side.

Chief District Court Judge Vaughn Walker declared in 2010, among other things, that the parents’ sexual orientation does not determine whether that individual can be a good parent and that children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by straight parents to be well adjusted. He further concluded that marriage has always been a civil matter and thus, even though the Church can solemnise unions, it cannot decide who gets to enter into marriage. He went on to say that creating anything other than marriage lacks the social meaning associated with marriage. When popping the question in front of our supportive friends and family, same-sex individuals do not ask their partners to “civil partnership” them.

The Archbishop’s argument can be countered by the fact that marriage has not had one true, natural definition. Not only does the tradition vary across cultures, marriage has also been permeable to the evolving moral attitudes within western societies, especially if one fully understands the role marriage historically played in oppressing ethnic minorities and women. Furthermore, declaring that marriage equality “would reduce it just to the commitment of the two people involved” and that “there would be no recognition of the complementarity of male and female” promotes that somehow the love between two committed same-sex individuals is somehow less worthy of recognition. This is homophobia, plain and simple.

Moreover, there has not been a catastrophe so apocalyptic in scale that it wiped out civilizations as a result of granting marriage equality rights. The Netherlands, the first country to grant marriage equality twelve years ago, has not slipped underneath the North Sea. Nor has the sky fallen in Massachusetts, the first US state to extend such rights in 2004.

So why are the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church still so adamant in influencing policy-making by brandishing its outmoded beliefs of the dangers posed by marriage equality, despite evidence to the contrary? It is easy to dismiss this as merely the incompatibility between science and religion, but the Catholic Church has shown throughout history that it is capable of relaxing its attitude towards scientific findings and changing social norms.

The leadership of the Roman Catholic Church turns a blind eye to its many devout followers who are forced to choose between sticking to their faith on one hand, and showing support for their LGBT loved ones on another. By reading this letter, the Church has affirmed to continue to do so, further alienating those within its fellowship who are ready to move beyond prejudice and wedge politics.

Moreover, consider the effects of this antiquated promulgation to the many LGBT and questioning youths who could already be experiencing insurmountable pressure at home, school or even online. It is no surprise that more and more young people are jumping ship from Catholicism. Many see its antiquity, rigidity, authority, and hypocrisy as reasons to leave, albeit hesitantly.

This letter reeks of ignorance and bigotry masked as compassion and duty. This letter, a few years from now, will only read as a desperate call by an institution grasping at its last straw of relevance. The Archbishop is well within his capacity to offer and reinforce the Church’s teachings on marriage equality, but influencing the policy outcome ought to be a matter of civil repercussion. I urge you, the reader, to sign the counter-petition by the Coalition for Equal Marriage (http://www.c4em.org.uk/) and to contact your respective MPs, voicing that you will not stand for this religious bigotry.

So what is dyslexia? Dyslexia is a neurological condition affecting how you deal with information. For me, my brain has poor short term memory so the processing of many things at once can be challenging, because I cannot take them all in. All of a sudden, with this new label, I have 25 per cent extra exam time and I am able to type rather than write in exams. What is not to like? Think you fancy it? Unfortunately, you cannot cheat the system and the test assesses elements of your intellect too. Therefore, if you were to fail all, you might just be told that you are not only dyslexic but also that you’re not the right kind of person to be studying at the LSE!

Why is it that an inability to do some things is considered a condition or disability whilst others are just considered weaknesses? My eyes are weak so I have glasses. My writing speed is slow and so I have extra time. Yet as much as I train at running, I will never be as fast as Paula Radcliffe, so should I get a head start at the beginning of a race in order to level her? Why is it that some weaknesses warrant assistance whereas others are merely what it is to lose in a competition? Prehistorically, these sorts of things would not have had such allowances; it was survival of the fittest. The slowest and the weakest of human beings would be least likely to source food, build sufficient shelter to brave hostile conditions and find a mate. Now, with this diagnosis of weaknesses as treatable conditions, perhaps we should send all D-grade students to the doctor too.

Will we ever have equity but be able to sustain ourselves with any element of competition or efficiency? The philosopher Rawls believes in the pursuit of equity but realises that it can never entirely be achieved. He perceives that, although there may be equal opportunities, talent is non-transferable. However, defining what constitutes talent is far from simple. If one has poor eyesight or a physical disability, it is easier to measure an improvement. My glasses, for example, bring me back to 20/20 vision. With dyslexia, things are categorised. At LSE you will get 25 per cent extra time, but maybe a particular person only needs 13 per cent more, and so therefore they gain an unfair advantage.

I cannot fathom how much help I am now getting, considering I have gone through my whole academic career without any extra support. Yet, nothing will be changed retroactively. I can only imagine where I might be had things been different. I reckon I could have got my undergraduate degree from Harvard aged 16 and now be onto writing my fifth book about solving world poverty, with someone to correct my spellings for me, of course! If dyslexia deserves so many support measures, perhaps it is important for everyone to be given a screening.

I still do not know if I am a dyslexia believer or not. I know that I certainly do not understand how my mind works and the study support sessions I am having will help that. I am not a neuroscientist and I do not doubt that there has been large amounts of research into the conceptualisation of the condition to allow so much attention and funding to be given to it. In the meantime I will wait for my MacBook to arrive in the post, get my Editor to correct my grammar and keep my fingers crossed for when, one day, I will be able to edit too.

There is a reason for this. As unpleasant as the truth may be, the SU has been dominated by a faction; the left, the Trots, the radicals. Call them what you will – I have no idea what a correct term would be.  Everyone knows they exist and this is not the place to name names so I will leave it at that. The point is, however, that they have been dominating our Students’ Union, drowning out voices of reason and moderation and making a mockery of some of the very institutions they invest so much in. They have made it a Students’ Union for some students, but not for all. I’ve spent the last three years not knowing whether to laugh, cry or just hang my head in shame when I see them in action.

For myself and others, the recent elections have been particularly interesting. I was not heavily involved in these elections, but I was familiar with the candidates. I was aware from the beginning that this was considered an election between the moderates and the left. As we all now know, the moderates won. This is a good thing. The reactions of the strongly leftist candidates and their supporters on election night showed not only how important these elections were to them but also how bitterly they took their defeat. Claims that this was a “racist” election, somehow unfair or that the “wrong” people were elected were bandied around. This is not only ridiculous but sadly symptomatic of the way in which this faction operates.

For one, these elections were not “racist.” Also, they were fair (until proven otherwise), well supported and saw plenty of voting. Many of the results were very close so clearly all candidates and their policies were popular with many people. It just happens that, this year, the moderates were more popular. For some reason, as apparent champions of “progression” with their slogans of “fight the cuts” and “education for the 99 per cent,” the left wing seems to think that a vote against them is somehow a vote against progressive policies. They seem to think that only they are qualified to serve the under-represented at LSE when, in fact, all candidates were essentially left wing. I only use the term “moderates” to determine between those who are far left and those who aren’t.

The way in which the left wing activists portray Students’ Union politics as some sort of binary choice, i.e. “you’re either with us or against us,” simply serves to alienate other people from getting involved and makes their own causes look increasingly desperate. You can call us fascist and antisemites all you want. It does not make us so. An example of this is the recent EGM debate over the No-to-Islamophobia motion. When it came to it, a group of moderate people, who agreed with 95 per cent of what was being said, opposed the motion on the rational grounds that it denoted as Islamophobic, “attacking the Qur’an as a manual of hatred” and, as such, was an affront to free speech. I agreed with them, as did many people I know who attended the EGM specifically for this event. What happened next was a perfect example of how the left wing alienates people from the Students’ Union. They decried the opposers’ requests to rewrite this small part of the motion as blocking progress, saying in an overly-emotional speech that “we shouldn’t even be having this debate.” Sorry, but should we just let you write and pass the motions yourselves? But wait, this is already happening.

At the end of Lent Term last year, there was a statement published “on behalf of the entire LSE Students’ Union” that condemned Howard Davies’ links with the Gaddafi regime. Regardless of Davies’ motives for his actions, this was a blatant attempt to make a statement with no consultation with the Students’ Union at large. It was only by the efforts of two brilliant third-years who brought this to the Students’ Union’s attention that the statement was altered in the “Thank You, Howard” motion, which passed by over one thousand votes. However, even this was labelled a personal attack on the left wing Sabbatical Officers. This is yet another example of the left wing sending out an image of it being a clique of like-minded friends, with no space for those who disagree.

Something that cripples our Students’ Union is that there constantly has to be some struggle or campaign, frequently over issues on which the Students’ Union carries little weight. I am all for raising awareness over the issue of Palestine or education cuts and letting you do your occupations but, at the same time, I would really quite like to have a talk about getting working printers. You know – an issue that actually affects all students who are currently studying at the university. For example, the replacement of the absurd doors in the Students’ Union shop by last year’s Disabled Student’s Officer made life far easier, even for those who are not disabled.

I must say, the one (and only) thing I admire and respect in these people is their willingness to get involved. Congratulations. Also, it must be made clear that not all people involved in the Students’ Union have such a negative impact, such as the moderate election winners. It is great that we have people willing to be active and protest according to their views but too much of this is cluttering a forum that has a wider purpose. The Students’ Union should represent all of us, particularly as societies cover outside issues anyway. By letting these people overstate the importance of outside issues we overlook the problems that are rife at the LSE now. Poor facilities on campus and excruciatingly slow building work in the library and halls; this is what you should be talking about too.

By effectively bullying anyone who opposes them, (insert classic phrase from last year’s Education Officer: “fascist Tory c**ts”), or just plain ignoring them, the left wing faction continues along its politically and emotionally blinkered path (sorry, struggle). This kind of bullying is exactly the kind of discrimination they claim to oppose and is a towering monument to their egos. Their self-claimed monopoly on progress and inability to accept consensus borders on self-righteousness and, by being such martyrs for their causes, they simply put people off, without realising that many people agree with 95 per cent of their arguments. They will argue that we non-activists can comment safely from behind our computer screens and do not raise the issues with them personally. But, you see, I would rather do that than, as we see so frequently, have a futile argument with you in a UGM that ends with me being shouted at and heckled from the balcony.

I accept that steps are being made to improve involvement and that UGM attendance and the issue of online voting are perennial problems. The Students’ Union remains a forum for a small group of undergraduates (the postgraduate issue is one that I have no space for here) and this needs to be resolved. There is room for hope, though. The Students’ Union has got some excellent new Sabbatical Officers, who will hopefully address the issues that need to be addressed. Of course, we must hold them to account and disagree when necessary but for now, all I can say is: long live the moderates and long live a Students’ Union for all students.

For those who missed out on all of this, a quick recap: “Kony 2012” is a 30-minute online documentary by American non-profit organisation, Invisible Children. It attempts to shed light on Joseph Kony, leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), a militant group formed in Northern Uganda. The organisation wants to bring him to international justice for enlisting an army of child soldiers. My first reaction to this video was, admittedly, one of deep criticism. Having watched previous films made by Invisible Children, I was not surprised at the film’s gross generalisations. I was, however, greatly disturbed by its infantilising and “tearjerking” film technique, its patronising, solution-oriented tone, and its direct advocation of military intervention to capture Kony. It simplifies a highly complex situation (so that even the filmmaker’s five-year-old child can understand it) and offers a self-professed “no brainer” solution: hunt down Kony and all will be well in Uganda.

What worried me most was that a massive audience of young people, even those with no previous knowledge of the situation, were forwarding and advocating this film as if it was the greatest revelation known to man. In addition, whoever refused to watch it or be moved by it was deemed ignorant, heartless or a pompous academic. Many people internalised the “with us or against us” approach of the film and reacted almost allergically to the criticisms. On the one hand, this viral sensation seemed to prove just how fast an online campaign can spread and remain steadfast in its beliefs. On the other hand, it shows how fast a misinformed conception of a situation can spread and be too inflexible to immerse itself in a dynamic and open-minded debate on the topic.

To be fair, I think the film has done an immense job of raising awareness of an issue that most people were probably unaware of. Furthermore, due to its highly emotional depictions, the film was able to generate a huge following, one that is committed to change. Lastly, the film encourages a solutions-oriented approach to the world’s problems, which is much better than indifference or plain old cynicism. As a cosmopolitanist would say, it makes the problems of people in Northern Uganda everyone’s problem. There is a noble element of solidarity and universality, which is a key factor in explaining the success of this online campaign.

Nevertheless, the Kony 2012 campaign does carry with it a somewhat unprecedented catalogue of critical issues that, no matter how well-intentioned the filmmakers or the activists are, need to be discussed.

Firstly, there were concerns regarding the organisation itself. It has something of a questionable rating from Charity Navigator. In addition, only about one third of its budget goes into direct services whereas the rest goes to salaries, travel and film production. Furthermore, the funds apparently support the Ugandan military, which has a reputation of raping and pillaging.

Secondly, there are a number of contextual errors. Not only are their numbers of child soldiers grossly exaggerated but the LRA, including Kony himself, have not been in Northern Uganda since 2006. Also, the US Africa Command has in the past sent missions to capture Kony but they’ve failed so far and have even contributed to further instability in the region.

Thirdly, the film inevitably contributes to the so-called “White Man’s Burden” discourse and may perpetuate the saviour-complex of the West. The film does not mention local groups working on making things better and it assumes that those living in the region are passive victims. It also presumptuously claims that young people on social networking websites can change the world with a simple click of a mouse.

Lastly, the film may also creates a false impression of what the real world is like and what online campaigning can really achieve. It assumes that raising awareness is important and that policymakers listen to their electorate. It also assumes that awareness and the sharing of a video makes more of an impact than foreign aid itself. Moreover, it assumes that the conflicts in Africa can only be resolved if young people in the West are engaged with it, a very paternalistic idea.

There are several lessons to be learned from the Kony 2012 campaign. It has brought out the best and the worst of viral campaigns. While it is important to actively and openly engage in continuous debate on the matter, we need to also be aware of its limitations. Frankly, the West does not have all the answers, especially to situations so complex and intricate. It would be presumptuous to think that it does. Nevertheless, I hope that the Kony 2012 campaign does not fade out as swiftly as it came in because I fear that most people will just return to their normal lives, normal interests and normal activities. This indifference and apathy is worse than any well-intentioned but badly-executed viral campaign. Indifference assumes that the world is too complex and too hopeless to get involved in, a situation which this indifferent attitude helps to aggravate.