The Beaver » News

£78,000 Spent on PR Firm for Gaddafi Scandal

news — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 02:03:14 +0000

: Lord Woolf | Beaver Archive

The LSE spent somewhere in the region of £78,000 on external public relations (PR) consultancy in the wake of the GICDF donation scandal.

According to the minutes of the Development Committee meeting of 22nd June 2011 obtained by the Beaver following a Freedom of Information Act request, a number of “generous gifts to the School [were] made by a number of our volunteers in the UK and the US following an initiative led by [redacted] to seek incremental donations from current donors to cover the unforeseen costs of PR consultants appointed in the light of the Gaddafi issue and the resignation of the Director.”

It was further noted by Fiona Kirk, Director of the Office of Development and Alumni Relations, that “a total of circa £78,000 was raised through this thoughtful initiative, a figure which broadly matched the costs incurred.”

The Development Committee is a committee of the LSE Council intended to provide guidance to the Director of the Office of Development and Alumni Relations. To this end, it is charged with the oversight of the fundraising programme at LSE and the provision of “volunteer leadership for strategy, identification and solicitation of significant gifts to the School” according to the Terms of Reference laid out for the Committee.

The decision to take on an external PR consultancy was made at the Council meeting of the 3rd March 2011, an extraordinary meeting brought about by the resignation of Howard Davies, former Director of the LSE. In discussion at this meeting, it was agreed that “the Council supported the appointment that day of Powerscourt (a strategic, financial and corporate public relations firm).”

In the same meeting, it was decided that Lord Woolf would oversee the external inquiry, with terms as following: “Lord Woolf is to make recommendations to the LSE Council as soon as possible. He is to have total discretion as to how he conducts the inquiry, and as to the matters on which he is to report.”

Powerscourt’s previous clients include BP, for whom they have been an adviser since 2006; Wonga, the payday loan company; and BAE Systems, the defence, security and aerospace firm, for whom they consulted between 2005 and 2008. In 2007, Woolf was confirmed at the chair of an “Ethics Committee” set up by BAE Systems in response to allegations of multi-million pound bribery in arms deals with Saudia Arabia. Woolf made a series of recommendations to the company very similar to those he made in the LSE’s Woolf Report.

The Beaver has, at the time of writing, been unable to determine exactly the nature of the work undertaken by Powerscourt under the terms of the contract with the School, with their website merely listing the LSE as a client, with no further information offered.

When contacted, Powerscourt simply said that they were contracted by the LSE to handle the GICDF crisis and that Woolf was independently appointed by an “unknown governing body.”

LSE’s press office stated that Woolf was asked “to conduct an independent inquiry into the School’s recent ties with Libya because of his unparalleled combination of legal expertise and experience of overseeing complex and high-profile inquiries. The quality and effectiveness of the hard-hitting report he produced only confirm that he was the ideal person for this job.”

When asked about his prior relationship to Powerscourt, Woolf stated,“it is correct that Powerscourt were handling BAE’s press relations in respect of the Inquiry I conducted with others into the activities of BAE.”

As far as I am aware, Powerscourt played no part in my being appointed to conduct the LSE Inquiry,” Woolf added.

30.4 per cent of home students attended private schools

news — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 02:00:35 +0000

Figures obtained by the Beaver show that applicants from private schools are more likely to be admitted to the London School of Economics (LSE) than applicants from state schools.

The data being used showed the breakdown of the schooling background of students from the United Kingdom.

In the academic year 2011/12, the LSE received 27 per cent of its applications from the United Kingdom and the European Union from “independent schools.” 30.4 per cent of students who are eventually admitted to the LSE on UK Home fees came from “independent school” applications.

Conversely, the LSE received 1423 out of 5427 applications from students from state school comprehensives for the 2011/12 entry, representing 26 per cent of the applications. In response, only 21.6 per cent of entrants in the year 2011/2012 were from state schools, representing a disparity between the ratio of applications made to the LSE and places offered by the School.

A figure that will not appear surprising is the number of international students at the LSE: it still
remains that around half of the LSE students are from overseas, with 31.4 per cent coming from non-EU schools and 30.5 per cent attended an independent school within the UK but are still paying EU Home or Overseas fees.

Overseas students can expect to pay £15,168 per year for their university education, without any UK government support – though some would receive support from their own governments.

However, the LSE seemed to fare better in terms of widening participation than expected.

In early 2012, www.studentbeans.com, a website for student discounts and student advice, produced “The Posh University League.” The league used statistics from the Higher Education Statistics Authority (HESA) to rank universities according to the proportion of students from independent schools they have.

The LSE was ranked 16th, below Oxbridge, St Andrews and University College London, with a
percentage of 29.2%.

On the LSE website, it is explained that their figures may differ from HESA figures. If LSE figures were used for the league table, the school would move up two places, above the University of Edinburgh and the Guildhall School of Music and Drama.

The statistics do not take into account the background of overseas students, generalizing them to “non-EU schools,” of whom many attended fee-paying “international schools” or standard private schools.

The LSE is outperforming Oxbridge currently in terms of balancing its intake between private and state schooled students. In 2010, 44.6 per cent of students accepted to the University of Oxford were from the independent sector, much higher than the LSE.

However, the proportion of overseas students accepted to Oxbridge is significantly lower, with the LSE being renowned as a truly international university.

Opinion of students at the LSE remains divided as to whether this is a problem or not.

One first-year student, in receipt of the LSE bursary, said, “although there is a relatively even mix between private and public school pupils, the proportion of private and grammar school students combined seems to heavily outweigh those who went to traditional state comprehensives.”

Abir Qazilbash, a first year International Relations student, added, “LSE, being founded on left-
wing/socialist principles, does still largely reflect that in its student body, and there isn’t much of a problem of a private versus state school schism.”

Dan Martin, a first year Social Policy student, disagreed: “a disproportionate number of students come to the LSE from independent schools and that shows,” Martin said. “That isn’t necessarily a problem, as there seems to be very little division between the state schooled and privately schooled. The figures do, however, raise the key issue of education outcomes.”

Martin went on to ask, “why is our university – and other top universities in this country – still made up of the privileged few? The evidence suggests state schools do just as good a job as independent schools, yet students from state schools still fail to get into elite universities.”

The School has a history of criticism for its admission of students from low-income
households. In 2010, the Guardian reported how the LSE was one of few universities “where less than 5% of the intake came from ‘low participation neighbourhoods.’” The data for 2011 has not been made available as of yet to draw comparisons.

The LSE has put measures in place to advance participation of people from lower socio-economic backgrounds through their award-winning LSE Widening Participation scheme.

They offer various mentoring schemes, shadowing days and conferences to encourage students, particularly from the inner-city, to apply to the LSE.

Generous bursary schemes are also offered in line with the tuition fee increase to £8,500, with up to £3,500 being offered to students from households with incomes below £18,000.

Certainly the number of overseas students distorts this though, as they occupy half of the places offered.

Sabbatical Officers: Strangers on Campus

news — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 01:58:26 +0000

A survey conducted by the Beaver has found that only five per cent of students are able to recognise the four full-time Sabbatical Officers and name their respective positions.

In total, 111 students took part in the survey, where they were asked to identify each Sabbatical

Officer in the picture above and to name their position. They were also asked about their knowledge of Students’ Union campaigns and activities. For the purpose of obtaining a good representation of the student body, about half of students in the sample were either postgraduates or General Course students.

Of the students interviewed, 49 per cent were able to correctly name Alex Peters-Day when shown the photo. This was by far the highest recognition of the full-time Sabbatical Officers. About the same percentage were able to correctly identify her as the General Secretary. A tenth of students surveyed thought she was the “President/Head/Director of the Students’ Union.”

Amena Amer was the second most recognised Sabbatical Officer, though only sixteen per cent of students were able to identify her correctly, and fourteen per cent were able to name her as the Education Officer. According to our survey, she is better known among postgraduates than undergraduates, and there were more than a few “Postgraduate Officer” guesses.

Lukas Slothuus fared a little worse, with fifteen per cent of students being able to identify him, and eleven per cent able to name him as Community and Welfare Officer, though one student, who recognised him from the “Your Hall, Your Call” initiative, repeatedly described him as a “nice guy.”

Just over ten per cent of students were able to identify Stanley Ellerby-English, and seven per cent were able to name him as Activities and Development Officer. Perhaps, as some students interviewed suggested, the Beaver ought to have used a more recent photo. A few students complimented his “new” hairstyle and glasses.

In response to this, Ellerby-English commented,“though I don’t know how recognisable I would be to the average student I would hope that I have made myself known to most if not all of the people who run the various student groups. I think that visibility and communication are two of the key areas that the SU needs and will be developing more in the future, so I hope that next year’s Sabbs take that on board.”

Interestingly, Lois Clifton, the Environment and Ethics Officer seemed to have a rather high profile on campus, with many mistaking her for the Education Officer.

When asked to name a Students’ Union campaign this year, about thirteen per cent of students simply said “fees.” Meanwhile, “The Only Way is Ethics” was successfully identified by seventeen per cent, though most who referred to this only managed to get the word “ethics.” The “microwave in the Quad” campaign was mentioned by twelve per cent. Walkouts and “the anti-Semitism thing” were also mentioned by a few.

When asked about the Students’ Union General Meeting (UGM) colloquially known as the “useless general meeting,” about 25 per cent of students knew the day and time. Meanwhile, a third were able to correctly name the venue, the Old Theatre. A close contender for meeting space was the Quad.

One thing that stood out from the responses to the survey was the cynicism towards the Sabbatical Officers. Many interviewed lamented what they perceived to be a lack of engagement with students. A few wondered whether the Sabbatical Officers had ulterior motives for taking their positions.

“They make a lot of noise during elections, that’s all they do,” said one student, “you don’t see them after that.”

A few student complained that the campaigns held this year were neither “substantial” nor “visible” enough. In comparison, the “Freeze the Fees” campaign last year still lingered in the memories of many of those surveyed.

Peters-Day spoke in support for the ‘Only Way is Ethics’ campaign, saying “this years campaign was always going to be different from previous ones. It has to all intents and purposes been very successful, in that the LSE has been looking very seriously at ethics and has launched a school-wide consultation with students at the fore-front of the entire process.”

“At the beginning of term we held some very well-attended meetings and around 2000 students signed-up to support the ‘Only Way is Ethics.’ Looking back we could have communicated some things better but I think we still see it is a successful campaign, if not the most visible one,” added the General Secretary. “There are a lot of different ways to campaign and different tactics serve different goals.”

Amer also responded to the poll stating, “Understandably I think some Sabbs are more well recognised in different student groups. This year we have tried to reach out to other groups and improve on our communication especially with our very own Facebook group and our blogs. This has been a step in the right direction but as always there is room for improvement.”

Community Voting Debated at UGM

news — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 01:56:19 +0000

Last week’s Union General Meeting (UGM) saw a bigger than usual turnout as one of the largest motion of the year, “Community Voting,” took center stage.

The motion, which has been repeatedly described as “very complicated” by various students who spoke on the issue, mainly sought to ensure that the Athletics’ Union President, the Mature/Part Time Officer, the International Students’ Officer, the Disabled Students’ Officer, the Women’s Officer and the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender (LGBT) Officer are elected solely by the community they are representing.

The motion also moved to introduce a Black and Ethnic Minority (BME) Officer, rename the Anti-Racism Officer the Anti-Racism and Anti-Fascism Officer, forming a “LSESU LGBT Alliance” and replacing the Postgraduate Officer position with a Postgraduate (Taught) Officer and a Postgraduate (Research) Officer.

Throughout the meeting, members of the audience showed a visible excitement towards the motion, leaving Jack Tindale, the chair of the UGM, struggling to bring the noise down to a manageable level.

According to Alec Webley, MSc in Comparative Science, who proposed the motion, “allowing different communities to choose their own officers” is the only way to ensure the elected officer’s “legitimacy.” Apologising for the complicated nature of the motion, he explained that it has many “knock-on effects” and thus a comprehensive motion is needed to address all of them.

The motion was opposed by Polly McKinlay, the Disabled Students’ Officer. Stressing that “everybody can become disabled and need the help of a Disabled Students’ Officer at any point of their life,” she argued that every student should have the right to elect the Disability Students’ Officer.

McKinlay added that the Union should try to address each issue separately instead of using a “blanket motion,” and that she “doesn’t know what I am voting for” due to the broad scope of the motion.

The opposition was seconded by Sam Barnett who expressed his concerns over the message the motion is delivering. “By implying to students that they don’t understand minority issues,” he argued, “the motion would produce broken-up segments of the community that is already divided.”Several concerns were also raised by members of the audience. One student argued that some disabled or LGBT student might not identify him/herself as part of that community, making it hard to draw the line between students who are allowed to vote for a particular officer and students who are not.

Another argued that the decisions of the part-time Executive Officers have an affect on everyone on campus, and thus they should “represent all of us.” John Peart, LGBT Officer elect, who seconded the motion responded that the liberation officers has “no responsibility” towards the other students. He also reminded the audience that new policies would still require the blessing of the UGM to be passed, and thus the officers would still have accountability towards the wider student body.

The motion was also supported by many in the audience, with one outlining the problem of candidates “trying to get votes from people who are not affected by the issue,” which may cause the candidates’ decisions to be “swayed by the majority.”

Two amendments to the motion were also debated and voted on.

The first amendment would exempt the Disabled Students’ Officer from the motion. The debate saw McKinlay reaffirming her stance, stressing once again the “fluid” nature of disability and the difficultly in “picking out” disabled students during the campaigning period. Despite her protests, the amendment fell by a small margin.

The second amendment would rename the Anti-Racism Officer the Anti-Discrimination Officer. One student took the stage to argue that the name of the position should be free of political connotations, and that the officer should have “the platform to tackle any form of discrimination.”

The amendment saw opposition from Lois Clifton, the current Environment and Ethics Officer. She stated racism and fascism as one of society’s biggest problems today, and thus it should be “made concrete” that the Union is fighting against them. The audience seemingly agreed with Clifton, as the second amendment fell by a significant margin.

After a show of hands, it was resolved that the “Community Voting” motion would voted on online.

This year’s Annual General Meeting will be held later this week on Thursday 15th March.

Gender inequality at LSE

news — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 01:54:21 +0000

Moves by the London School of Economics (LSE) to reduce gender inequality among staff in its ‘Single Action Plan’ are failing. A diversity report, released in 2012, details the composition of the workforce and shows the representation of males and females at the LSE.

Stark disparities in the number of women employed in senior positions still exist, particularly among Readers and Professors. Only a quarter of the positions are occupied by women, with men occupying 75 per cent of these roles. While senior lecturers have a 70:30 male to female ratio, senior management is also dominated by men, with a 65:35 imbalance.

Alternatively, female representation among LSE fellows, lecturers and teaching positions fares somewhat better. For lecturers, the headcount taken in October 2011 shows that 94 lecturers were female, as opposed to 118 male lecturer; 58 per cent of LSE fellows were male, and 57 per cent of teaching staff were male.

A ‘Single Action Plan’ to tackle inequality at the LSE was issued in 2011, with one of its objectives being, “to examine procedures for the appointment, review and promotion of academic staff, identifying and addressing any gender specific disproportionate effect.”

A desired outcome of this was to have “increased representation of women in academic roles where they are currently underrepresented.” The data detailed above demonstrates that increased representation has been minimal, with men still dominating the top roles in the School.

However, 48.6 per cent of the workforce at the LSE is female, compared to the national average of 46 per cent for the Higher Education sector.

This can largely be explained by the high proportion of women in operational support roles and managerial or professional roles, with women occupying over half of all positions in these fields.

Lucy McFadzean, Women’s Officer for LSE Student’s Union expressed her regret at the continued dominance of men in senior roles: “it’s quite sad, although predictable, to see that there is definitely a glass ceiling for women, even in academia and at LSE. It’s really important to have women represented right up to the top levels and decision making bodies, and there is really no excuse for the university not to have women fully represented at all levels.”

McFadzean further stated, “I think it’s also important to highlight the fact that there are more female students at LSE, and to remind ourselves that this doesn’t mean we should relax, as clearly it’s not the issue of getting women into education that is the problem, but that supposedly once they get to a higher level they are not held in the same regards as men.”

“I think the best thing LSE can do is put more women in the top positions, but also to provide and promote good systems of maternity and paternity leave and the like,” added McFadzean

Other measures have also been put forward by the LSE to tackle gender inequality, which do not appear to be successful.

In June 2010, an ‘Action Plan’ was put forward by the Equal Pay Audit, commissioned by Human Resources at the LSE. It outlined moves to improve representation of women among the more senior positions at the LSE.

The next Equal Pay Audit has not yet been released, but figures show that there has been little improvement since 2010 in terms of the number of women employed at senior roles, which would suggest that the average salary among women will remain similar.

Senior staff employed at the highest salary band (10) are paid between £64,958 and £116,291. Currently at the LSE, there exists an average pay gap between males and females, with men earning £54,727 on average, compared to £43,255 for women. This pay gap can be explained by the minority of women in senior academic roles, who fall within the highest salary band.

Students at the LSE expressed their perception of the gender balance of their teachers and lecturers.

A 2nd year Anthropology student, said “I have had two female lectures and one female teacher the whole term. The other thirteen have all been male.”

Other students in the department of International Relations explained how they “only had one female lecturer,” whilst a Law student had “all male class teachers.”

Claire Sanders, Head of Communications, discussed the unbalanced gender ratio, saying, “Professor Judith Rees is a highly successful Director of LSE. She made clear on her appointment as Director that she was taking the job only an interim basis and did not wish to be considered for the post permanently. There are currently three women on the seven-strong Director’s management team, including Professor Rees as Director.”

The proportion of women in the most senior jobs at LSE (Professors or Band 9 and 10) is steadily increasing as is the proportion of women in the top five per cent of earners at LSE — which almost doubled between 2009 to 2011 to a fifth,” added Sanders. “So the number of women in senior positions at LSE is moving upward although we clearly need to do more in this area.”

Earlier in the term, while speaking at the UGM about Craig Calhoun’s appointment as Director, Rees said she was happy with his appointment, though she would be happy to see a woman hold the post somewhere down the line.

Student counselling centre over-extended

news — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 01:52:19 +0000

The Beaver has received several complaints from students regarding the lack of counselling support provided by the London School of Economics (LSE).

The counseling service in the LSE is provided by the Student Counseling Service. According to the website, they “aim to enable students to cope more effectively with any personal or study difficulties that may be affecting them while at LSE.” Providing a “free and confidential service”, the centre offers around 100 sessions of counselling each week.

In addition, it also holds support groups and workshops for issues ranging from stress management to procrastination, which has been utilised by around 500 students last year.

However, several students have expressed dissatisfaction towards the counseling service they have received.

A second year student, who asked to remain anonymous, commented on the difficulty in securing an appointment from the Student Counselling Service. The student claimed he/she had to wait three weeks before getting an initial assessment appointment. It then took one month for the first counselling session to be scheduled and another three weeks for the second.

“This was at a time when I was close to committing suicide – I was so despondent”, the student said. When trying to explain the urgent situation to the Student Counselling Service, the student was told that “the demand was to high at the moment and that the best bet was to come in for a twenty minute walk in session.”

The student turned to the NHS for help, only to find herself running into another wall. “They told me that short of paying someone 100 pounds per weak, which I could not afford, I should just go in to the Emergency Section of any hospital if it got really bad,” the student said.

Similar sentiments were echoed by another third year student. “It took them over a month to respond to my inquiry about starting counselling,” the student said, “by that time, I was discouraged and had found external help.”

In addition, there are also complaints criticising the centre’s inability in providing adequate long term counselling service and good referrals: “they told me at my first meeting that they could not offer me more than five sessions and that I should focus on small issues, which wasn’t really the problem” a first year student stated.
Adam Sandelson, the Head of Counselling, stated that appointments are offered based on urgency.

“The important issue here is working out who needs to be seen soonest, and if we know someone is in a high risk situation we will find a way to see them the same day,” he said, “inevitably, there can be delays given the numbers of people we are seeing – especially in Lent Term.”

According to Sandelson, 6.3 per cent of students indicated on the evaluation survey that their counselling sessions had not been arranged in a satisfactory time frame last year. The Student Counselling Service has since introduced a daily drop-in service to “improve our accessibility to students”.

Responding to complaints regarding the lack of long term counselling service, Sandelson explained that the centre operates on a short-term model, “aiming to see as many students as possible over the course of the year.”
“A small number of students do have long term counselling,” he said, “but we have to balance their needs against the rest of the students’ at LSE.”

He added that the center “has good links with a number of agencies where we refer students. In most cases, students will refer themselves to outside organisations for long term counselling.”

Sandelson also shared some positive feedback the center has received from a student, which said: “having someone to talk to about my problems was incredibly useful. The counsellor really helped me to feel better about myself and come up with ways to deal with my problems.”

Earlier this year, the LSE Student Union have teamed up with Campaign Against Living Miserably (CALM), a charity that strives to bring down suicide rates among young men in the UK through unconventional methods, such as music, football and magazines, in a bid to improve the amount of support available to students in the LSE.

According to Lukas Slothuus, Community and Welfare Officer, the Student Union will “distribute their free magazines and include them on our website and newsletter”, though he added that the SU’s involvement could “potentially develop further than that.”

Your Hall Your Call 2012 proves a success

news — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 23:07:23 +0000

‘Your Hall, Your Call’ (YHYC) is a campaign led by the London School of Economics (LSE) Students’ Union that seeks to engage with those living in university-owned halls of residence. The aim of the annual tour is for students to “tell LSE what is right and wrong with your hall” so improvements can be made and so opinions are voiced that may otherwise have not been heard.

Lukas Slothuus, Community and Welfare Office, stated that “Your Hall, Your Call has been a great success so far.”

Moreover, “having visited Butlers Wharf, Passfield, and Sidney Webb, I’ve had a chance to speak to a wide range of students. The comments and concerns raised have been overwhelmingly constructive and I am excited about going to the remaining four halls on the on tour next week – Rosebery, Carr-Saunders, High Holborn, and Northumberland” added Slothuus.

The report, published on 6th March 2012 revealed the procedures which have been implemented in response to the issues raised by residents in LSE halls.

This year, many students have voiced their concerns over building work that has taken place in halls. Josh Babarinde, a first year BSc Government student stated that “construction projects can often be disruptive during the day and there should be increased dialogue between students and those in charge of the work.”

In relation to the apparent lack of communication between contractors, LSE and hall staff when major construction projects occur, the YHYC scheme has ensured that “steps have been taken to improve communication about more substantive pieces of work which include upfront information for applicants, webpage information and sharing of overall planned annual works with the Wardens.”

Similarly, there were questions raised over the Wardens and Subwardens lack of presence within halls. The project has therefore brought about an assurance to make accommodation staff more visible for students. Activities such as Wardens meetings and welcomes have been implemented along with the inclusion of photographs on electronic message boards, welcome email messages to students prior to arrival and an extended feature in the 2011/12 Student Halls Handbook. Reception staff are also often viewed as being unapproachable and according to the campaign, mail and parcels have been stolen. In order to rectify this problem, staff are required to undergo training and attend conferences, while students are actively encouraged to report suspicions of theft.

The YHYC campaign also focused on the more practical elements of life in halls. Printers often break, run of of toner and are not serviced regularly and the project promises to ensure that “during the next IT Advisor induction, emphasis will be given to ensuring that an appreciation why this is important and how to maintain a consistent service.” However, the YHYC campaign concluded that, in relation to the provision of wireless Internet in every hall, “the present hard-wired configuration makes this unlikely in the short term and definitely not achievable for 2011/12.”

There has been, however, a successful campaign to provide Kosher and Halal foods in Rosebery Hall which came into affect from Lent Term this year.

According to Slothuus, “the results so far look extremely promising and I am convinced the final report I will be presenting to Residences Committee in May is going to be a real success.”

The YHYC campaign will continue to make its way around LSE halls this week and the final report will be published in May 2012.

Women march united through London

news — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 23:06:02 +0000

Women across London marched to commemorate the 101st anniversary of International Women’s Day last Thursday, in celebration of the achievements of women and girls around the world and to collectively push for global gender equality.Leading up to Women’s Day on March 8th, the London School of Economics (LSE) Students’ Union held several events in celebration of International Women’s Week, including a “Sex Fayre” on Tuesday, organised by the Students’ Union Feminist Society.

Cordelia Roberts, Co-president of the Feminist Society, distributed leaflets on safe sex and sexual health on Houghton Street. Roberts stated that “a lot of the events last term were reactions to cases of sexism and this year, we thought it would be positive to do something that’s focused on the good stuff.”

“This is a feminist issue, but it’s also a student wide issue. And there’s just nowhere to get this information on campus in a relaxed way without going to a doctor and saying ‘I want to know about contraception,” added Roberts.

The Raising and Giving Society (RAG) held a “photo treasure hunt” in which student teams competed to take snapshots of selected “international women-themed” sights around London. Wednesday also saw the Students’ Union hosting a Women’s Day party in collaboration with University of the Arts London, which showcased feminist art and featured live music, DJs and various craft-making activities.

Thursday was the culmination of the week’s events, when LSE students met on Houghton Street and joined with others from University College London, The School of Oriental and African Studies and the Courthauld Institute to take part in Women for Women’s “Join Me on the Bridge” campaign, a celebratory march across Millennium Bridge to London’s Southbank. With colorful banners and painted faces, LSE students marched alongside women in seventy countries around the world in an act of strength and solidarity.

Katharine Tengtio, an MSc Gender, Policy and Inequality student, said, “it was great to see so many women from all walks of life join together on the bridge, and even greater to see pictures of other women joining on bridges in other countries around the world.”

When asked about the importance of the event, Clement De Rivas, an MSc Economic and Sociology student, added, “it is important to highlight that we need to keep working on gender inequalities as things won’t change if awareness decreases.”

After crossing the Millennium Bridge, the marchers convened at the Women of the World (WOW) Festival at the Royal Festival Hall to take part in workshops and listen to speeches, comedy acts and music celebrating the talent and creativity of women.

Lucy McFadzean, Students’ Union Women’s Officer, is hoping to build on the Women’s Week celebration in the future. She stated, “I think everyone enjoyed the events and learnt a lot about women’s struggles and the importance of female solidarity. I hope that the week gets bigger and better next year.”

Since 1910, International Women’s Day has aimed to bring attention to the ongoing struggle for economic, political and social equality between genders as well as to honour the women and men who have catalysed real and continuing change towards a brighter future for women everywhere.

Nicoleta Benga, an MSc Sociology student, believes that “Women’s Day is a good moment to remember all the achievements we’ve made in women’s rights so far, but it is also there to remind us that there is still more to do and that we should not settle for the status quo yet.”

LSE Student Runs for President of the European Council

news — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 23:02:12 +0000

The seat for President of the European Council is being challenged by a London School of Economics (LSE) student seeking to raise debate and open dialogue around the electoral process.

On 1 March, Herman Van Rompuy was unanimously re-elected as President of the European Council to serve a second two-and-half year term.

But also vying to be the face of the European Council was LSE European Institute student Tug. Upon learning in late February that Van Rompuy did not have any competition for his seat, Tug, who has asked to be solely identified on a first-name basis, decided to launch his own Presidential campaign.

“We are 500 million people in Europe and there is just one contender for the president of the European Council?” said the French native. “So I said I am going to do this. I am going to run for candidacy.”

Tug’s campaign was pursued through social media and a dedicated student team concerned about the democratic nature of the Council’s Presidential elections.

Although unsuccessful in his bid stating that, “I don’t have any contacts so I cannot call Sarkozy and say hey, buddy, I’m running as well,” Tug 2012 focused on bringing to light nature of the European Council’s elections. “My main aim is to highlight the fact that there is no formal election,” added Tug.

The LSE student went on to state, “I find it disappointing because I think the EU has been a vanguard in democracy and promoting democracy in the world and rule of law. And I find it disappointing that there wouldn’t be the same principle at least at the European Council. It’s an important position. This guy is talking in the name of the 27 member states.”

The position of the President of the European Council was put into effect on 1 December 2009 under the Treaty of Lisbon. The role includes chairing council meetings, facilitating cohesion and consensus, and acting as an external representative. Van Rompuy was first chosen as President elect on 19 November 2009, at an informal meeting in Brussels, by the member states.

In his acceptance speech for his second mandate on 1st March, Van Rompuy argued, “in a way my job is to be the guardian of trust: fostering mutual understanding around this table among ourselves, knowing that for us together, our duty is to preserve the trust of citizens in the Union.”

“[The President] has an important role to play and for an organisation like the EU that promotes democracy all other the world, considers democracy to be one of its founding values, we thought that this process was unworthy of the EU’s democratic principles,” said an MSc Politics and Government in the European Union student Atte, who also asked to be known on a first-name basis.

An active member of the Tug 2012 campaign team, Atte said “there should be open discussion and debate during elections, where candidates explain their visions for the position and for Europe.”

Tug also went on to say that though “it’s a joke [but one] I want to push as far as possible.”

The team argues that the aim of the campaign is not an attack on Van Rompuy, but meant to increase engagement and dialogue. One way the Tug 2012 campaign team is hoping to do so, is to get more “likes” on Facebook than Van Rompuys’ page.

“This campaign shows that a nobody can create a debate and can do something about an issue that is as important as this one,” said Atte.

The European Society hosted a talk on Monday on ‘Tug 2012 vs. Van Rompuy: A Democratic Deficit?’ with speakers Simon Hix, LSE Professor of European and Comparative Politics and Fellow of the British Academy and Maurice Fraser, LSE Senior Fellow in European Politics.

Alistair Darling on the economy

news — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 23:01:30 +0000

Alistair Darling, Former Chancellor of the Exchequer, spoke at the London School of Economics (LSE) on Tuesday 6th March. In the words of chair Professor Tim Besley, “after taking a break from front bench politics,” Darling’s current involvements include the ‘Keep Scotland in Britain’ campaign. He covered a variety of areas in the lecture, from inequality to the UK manufacturing industry, and the global financial crisis.

Darling, the current Member of Parliament (MP) for Edinburgh South West described inequality as both “morally wrong” and “very inefficient.” He also depicted the first five or six years of Labour’s previous term as one that strove to redistribute wealth, without publicly admitting to doing so.

He also highlighted the UK’s relatively small manufacturing industry. Darling attributes this this to the seventies, when there was a reaction against public ownership within various industries. The view was taken that the government’s role was to “get the macroeconomic environment right.” This persuasion was held from the Thatcher government through until 2008, when it became apparent that markets needed closer attention.

Darling clarified that he was not suggesting we return to the previous levels of state ownership, quipping that this was ironic considering he had “nationalised more banks than anyone else.” Furthermore, he expressed that the “centre of economic gravity is moving remorselessly from the west to the east to the south.” Darling believes that the government has the ability to do more to support manufacturing industries, without owning them, and if they do not he fears the economic power will shift further.

Darling also explored the reasons that lead the financial crisis. In June 2007, when he was appointed as Chancellor, “things looked absolutely fine.” Whilst there were warning signs, “they hadn’t really been brought together anywhere, despite what some people subsequently claimed.”

It was evident there were serious problems in autumn 2007, when “banks became increasingly reluctant to lend to each other.” This was due to banks realising that they owned a large amount of assets that “they could not value.” They inferred other banks very possibly were in the same position, and stopped lending fearing they would not be paid back. Talking on his experiences of the situation, Darling spoke of a call he received from the Chairman of the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), where he was told that in two or three hours, RBS would run out of money.

Darling also described the the time where he got in “serious trouble as Chancellor.” In the summer of 2009, he gave an interview to the Guardian stating he “thought it was likely to be the worst downturn in sixty years, and more profound and long lasting than people thought.” After saying this, “the substances hit the fan in a style that was deeply unpleasant.”

The problem of elusive growth was also highlighted in Darling’s lecture. In the 2011 Autumn Statement, the current Chancellor George Osborne announced that £158bn more would be borrowed than predicted in 2010.

He discussed the areas he would look into to tackle the issue of growth. Firstly, he would look at “the incomes of basic rate taxpayers and also the people on low incomes.” According to Darling, the incomes of these people are “being squeezed, if not cut.” This leads to them not spending, and cosequently hindering growth. Secondly, he would wish to tackle youth unemployment, which has both political and economic repercussions. He would also like to see some consideration put into large infrastructure projects. Darling brought up the failings of planning in the UK. He provided the example of the M6 Express Way, which he opening in 2003. It was planned during Harold Wilson’s government spanning from 1964 to 1970.

The former Chancellor also worries that Heathrow Airport will fall into “a long-term decline” under the governments current decisions. Darling emphasised the very high number of jobs dependent on Heathrow. He also showed strong scepticism over plans for an airport on the Thames to provide the demanded plane capacity. Darling believes it would be highly expensive, and that airlines will not wish to bare the costs. Furthermore, the large numbers of geese would cause great difficulties for planes. He added that “it just isn’t going to get built.”

The subject of quantitative easing was raised by an audience member after the former Chancellor’s speech. Darling described it as part of the central bank’s “armoury” when interest rates are so low. The Conservative government’s intention of quantitative easing is to increase lending to the high-street though giving the banks more cash.

Darling argued that he would like to see the government take “a more proactive approach in ensuring that the money that is coming into the system actually finds its way out of the bank vaults, into the wider economy.”

Another audience member raised the idea of taking advantage of our ownership of a large share of the banking industry. A new entity could be created and managed by the government to lend to businesses and help growth. Darling responded that to increase lending in such a fashion, the government would have to relax the lending criteria. Furthermore, the government would suffer the consequences if these loans went bad. Using China as an example, he spoke of when the Chinese government got their banks to lend more. Some of these loans are now being rolled over as they could not be paid off. He also emphasised the limitations of trying to encourage lending and borrowing when business confidence is low.

Lastly, the MP for Edinburgh South West argued for Scotland to stay in the UK. He contested the view that Scotland is a “subsidy junky,” saying “it depends how you do the sums.” Darling also addressed the question of maintaining the pound in Scotland. The Scottish National Party leader, Alex Salmond, currently wishes for Scotland to keep the pound and sign a stability and growth pact with the UK. However, according to Darling, an independent Scotland would then have to return to the rest of the UK to approve its budget.