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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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