Viewing archives for Politics

Media reports about the extent of divisions within the parliamentary Conservative Party over the Brexit negotiations are well wide of the mark, MP Mike Freer told sixth-formers.

The Tory MP and former QE governor came into School to speak to Year 13 in a special assembly and responded robustly when asked whether he thought splits in the party would prevent the Government from winning any vote on Brexit.

“I sometimes feel as if I work at a different House of Commons to what I see portrayed in the media,” said Mr Freer, an Assistant Government Whip and MP for Finchley and Golders Green. He stated that the vast bulk of the Parliamentary Conservative Party supports the Prime Minister, adding that not only had she been a successful Home Secretary, but that she also knew Europe and understood that good deals inevitably happen at the very last minute.

And Mr Freer had another example of how perceptions of British politics can be affected by the media: he pointed out that although the chamber of the House of Commons usually appears quite empty on the BBC Parliament channel, this was because most of Parliament’s work was in fact conducted outside the chamber.

Mr Freer was on QE’s Governing Body when he was as a councillor in the London Borough of Barnet, where he served as Leader prior to running for Parliament. He spoke to the boys about the true role of MPs in the legislative process and about how to effect changes in public policy, before answering their questions on a wide range of political topics.

An MP’s job is to scrutinise the law, not make it, he explained. The law usually comes from the Government, which is the executive. However, there are a number of ways in which MPs can achieve a change in the law, through lobbying, questioning, building consensus, and trying to amend legislation as it progresses through Parliament. One approach is to hang an amendment on to a piece of legislation already tabled – known in the US as a Christmas tree bill. Westminster Hall debates – for which MPs sit in a horseshoe arrangement intended to encourage non-confrontational discussions – provide another opportunity to influence, he said.

Mr Freer recounted how he had secured changes to the law to:

• Make residential squatting illegal
• Remove ‘poppers’ from the list of drugs controlled under the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 (having challenged the Department of Health’s evidence about their health impact).
• Make PrEP (Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis) available on the NHS. (PrEP is when people at very high risk for HIV take HIV medicines daily to lower their chances of getting infected.)
• Extend the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccine’s availability to include boys.

“Changing public policy is the most worthwhile thing about being an MP. I’m proud if I’ve stopped one person getting an HPV-related cancer,” he said.

Boys challenged Mr Freer in a number of areas during the Q & A session. He was asked, for example, “how do you reconcile the fact that your constituency voted for ‘remain’ with the Government’s position (that you are whipping)?”

“Easy! I’m a democrat,” he replied, adding that the Brexit referendum was the largest democratic vote in the country’s history and that all should therefore respect its outcome.

There were also questions on his voting record, including one on tuition fees. One sixth-former put a particularly thoughtful question about community relations: how did Mr Freer reconcile religious rights with the rights of other groups, such as the LGBT+ community, within such a diverse constituency. His answer was that trust is built over time as people get to know you as their MP and see you working hard for the local area; this allows you to disagree on particular issues without destroying those relationships.

After the assembly, Headmaster Neil Enright said: “This was a wide-ranging talk and set of questions, which engaged the boys and which will have aided their understanding of the political and legislative processes, not least in terms of gaining an insight into how MPs influence public policy. It is important that our pupils are able to consider a range of political perspectives on the key issues of the day and engage critically with them.”

QE sixth-formers heard from leading cross-party politicians at a day conference that touched upon topics ranging from Brexit to humanitarian issues in conflict zones.

Yet despite all this, there was a single appeal that rang out loud and clear, according to Year 12’s Eshan Patel: “Over the course of the event, one key message was expressed; that young people were vital in politics and were needed for the future of the country.”

Parliamentarians including Commons Speaker John Bercow, Foreign Office Minister Sir Alan Duncan and Labour MPs Clive Lewis and Jess Phillips made the call, making clear that young people were needed “to help increase the work that has already been done towards equality for women and minorities”.

The 2017 A-Level Politics Conference featured talks from currently serving politicians, who also answered the sixth-formers’ questions.

Brexit was a repeated point of focus. Speakers including Labour’s Sir Keir Starmer discussed a ‘soft Brexit’, the importance of access to the single market and matters of economic policy. Tory Remainer Anna Soubry discussed the approach of Theresa May in the negotiation process, standing strongly behind her.

High-profile Conservative Jacob Rees-Mogg (pictured with three QE students) spoke on traditional values within politics, while the Liberal Democrats’ former leader, Nick Clegg, answered questions on the future of his party. Labour’s Chuka Umunna delivered a strong speech on the future of the country in relation to global events, such as humanitarian issues in Syria and Libya.

Overall, reported Eshan, the trip was interesting and provided many fresh insights for the QE boys. “It helped us understand how fragile the Brexit negotiations are, as well as the desired outcomes of the two main parties.” he said.

QE’s Head of Politics, Liam Hargadon, said: ““This was a rare opportunity for students to come face-to-face with national leaders and to address their concerns directly to decision-makers. QE students derive great benefit from this occasion.”

One of the UK’s leading human rights lawyers gave QE boys some thought-provoking insights into the complex area of British attitudes towards discrimination and the law.

Rebecca Hilsenrath, who is both Chief Executive and Chief Legal Officer to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, was a guest speaker at QE’s Politics Society. Her son, Adam Hilsenrath, (OE 2008–2015) is a former School Captain who won a place to read History at Oxford.

The commission, which is Great Britain’s national equality body, exists to “make Britain fairer…by safeguarding and enforcing the laws that protect people’s rights to fairness, dignity and respect”, according to its website.

Headmaster Neil Enright said: “I am most grateful to Rebecca for visiting us. The boys were clearly very engaged in the discussion that ensued and it is a great strength of the QE community that we can draw on people like her to come in and provide their knowledge, advice and inspiration to the boys. Her insights on the importance of voluntary work and of generally contributing to society accord fully with the tenets of our School mission.”

Ms Hilsenrath began her talk with a story of hill-climbing in Wales, where she thought she could see the top but realised that each time she got there, she had been deceived by the angle and there was in fact much further to go. A similar situation obtained with human rights in the UK, she said.

As the country of Magna Carta, Britain has “a fantastic tradition of leading on human rights and the development of law,” (which is why people in Brussels are so devastated at Brexit, she added.) The UK has done well in dealing with ‘direct discrimination’, but there are still many challenges around ‘indirect discrimination’. This results when groups are adversely affected by factors which, at face value, are not about them, but which particularly affect them. These groups often comprise those who do not enjoy high levels of public sympathy, such as gypsies or transgender people. Even with indirect discrimination, the picture is not altogether negative: there have been significant improvements for some groups as a result of cultural change, including much greater acceptance and equality.

The public, Ms Hilsenrath said, are generally supportive of single-issue matters of equality, but “people are scared of the big picture” and are negative on the advancement of human rights as a whole. There may, she believes, be some correlation between this and periods when Government finances are especially stretched: “People tend to be nastier to each other at these times, to hit out. Unhappiness can be manifested as xenophobia.”

The other important context is the continued prevalence of terrorism in the public and political discourse. The 9/11 attacks happened soon after the Human Rights Act came into full force in the UK. “Debate about human rights has been wrapped up in discussions of terrorism ever since,” she said. The public’s focus has often been on asking whether the country is being too lenient on terrorists, and there is a corresponding reluctance to grant terrorists rights: “It is much easier to give rights to those we like.”

Ms Hilsenrath argued, however, that it is possible both to have human rights and to implement robust measures to deal with terror, since many rights are “qualified” in relation to matters such as national security.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission’s last report two years ago showed big improvements for many, but made clear that there was still work to do. Some groups seemed to have fared worse than others as a result of policy and tax changes. She clarified the organisation’s mission: “We are not aiming for total equality – trying to make two people the same – instead we are after equality of opportunity.”

The boys asked a host of questions covering everything from her views on communism as a tool for trying to make society more equal and whether there should be a codified British Bill of Rights, to whether income inequality is necessarily a bad thing and whether some rights are more important than others.

She also provided some more general advice about working in law and public life, explaining that changing jobs can be a way to progress, as it helps you get a rounded experience.

She stressed the importance of voluntary work and encouraged boys to do as much of it as possible. Helping others was a key theme here: “Everybody needs to do what they can for other people out of love, to reach out and make a difference. Success in life is about being ‘the best you’, and to do that you need to do more than the day job.”

Broadcaster and journalist Jeremy Paxman brought with him his trademark combination of forthright frankness and well-informed opinion when he visited the School. He also brought his dog, Derek!

The 67-year-old question master from the BBC’s University Challenge made his name with his tough interviewing style on the corporation’s Newsnight.

When he came to the QE Politics Society event, the shoe was on the other foot, with boys from all year groups seizing the chance to grill the famous interviewer. However, that did not prevent some boys, including Politics Society Chairman Tej Mehta, from being ‘Paxmanned’ – robustly taken to task for the slant of their questions – albeit in very good humour.

The format of the visit, which was arranged by Head of Politics Liam Hargadon, was a question-and-answer session. Mr Paxman answered questions on a wide variety of subjects, including Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn, pollsters, the 2017 general election, social media, Donald Trump and, of course, Brexit.

The Headmaster said: “Mr Paxman was typically forthright, proffering honest and entertaining opinions on many of the key issues of the day.

“Such visits give our boys unique opportunities to learn from national and international experts. They also foster our pupils’ skills in asking good questions, which we see as an important aspect of developing boys’ intellectual capabilities – and who better to learn from than the master questioner himself?”

“Through interacting with somebody of Mr Paxman’s stature, they learn to think carefully and analytically, to articulate clearly and to stand firm in their arguments, while remaining willing to listen to differing views.

“I would like to thank him for his visit and also for the surprise visit of his cocker spaniel, who was a big hit with the boys.”

Old Elizabethan George ‘The Poet’ Mpanga brought his trademark eloquence and sharp insights to BBC TV’s flagship political discussion programme, Question Time.

George (OE 2002–2009) repeatedly challenged the stance of the Conservative Government on topics including housing, positive discrimination and the Russian government’s suspected involvement in the attempted murder of former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter.

The Government was represented on the panel by International Trade Secretary Liam Fox. Other guests on the programme were: the Shadow Minister for Labour, Laura Pidcock; chef, restaurateur and Great British Bake Off judge Prue Leith, and Roma Agrawal, a chartered structural engineer who has worked on major projects including the Shard. Hosted by David Dimbleby, the programme was filmed at a venue close to the Houses of Parliament in Westminster.

George, who mostly received enthusiastic applause from the audience, told Dr Fox that the Government’s “measured tone” over the nerve gas poisoning was “actually quite damaging” and that President Putin “does not seem to bat an eyelid”.

On the prospect of a global trade war initiated by US President Donald Trump, George called for Britain to have “an honest conversation with itself about who our friends are”.  He added that “free trade goes both ways”, charging that rich nations too often “siphon off the best of [poorer nations’] resources and talents”.

Responding to a question referring to the Prime Minister’s recent announcement of planning reforms and her comment that young people were “right to be angry about housing”, George was scathing: “It’s another one of her beautiful truisms. Of course, young people are right to be angry about it, but the question is, what is actually going to be done? And promising planning permissions is not tantamount to actually taking control of the situation.”

As the programme came to a close, George spoke in favour of positive discrimination schemes being used in recruitment, stating that they tackled a “deficit or inherent bias in society” by compelling “employers or people in positions of leadership to reassess what their bias is and what they are thinking when making these decisions”.

George read Politics, Psychology and Sociology at King’s College, Cambridge, graduating in 2013. Since then, he has earned growing fame for his spoken-word work: last year, he performed in front of the Queen at the Commonwealth Day Service in Westminster Abbey and released a two-minute video on hate crime in collaboration with the Equality and Human Rights Commission to coincide with the anniversary of the murder of MP Jo Cox.

An international expert gave boys fascinating insights into the worlds of security, foreign policy and defence in the latest talk in QE’s lecture programme.

In his wide-ranging address to Senior School assembly, Shashank Joshi, who works for a leading security thinktank, looked at topics including the scope of security, the importance of research and the psychological impact of a country acquiring nuclear weapons.

A Senior Research Fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, Mr Joshi focuses primarily on international security in South Asia and the Middle East, with a particular interest in Indian foreign and defence policy. He holds a starred first in Politics and Economics from Cambridge and a Master’s degree from Harvard, where he has also taught, and in 2007–2008 he was a Kennedy Scholar in the US. He has given evidence to the House of Commons’ Foreign Affairs and Defence committees several times. His most recent book, Indian Power Projection: Arms, Influence and Ambition, published last year, was praised by the Financial Times as “admirably lucid”.

After being introduced by Nikhil Shah, of Year 12, Mr Joshi told the boys that security covers a broad range of issues and regions. It concerns not just weapons, but is about everything from climate change (insofar as it affects security) to investigating how a large bet against the value of Borussia Dortmund’s shares helped the authorities track the perpetrator of the recent attack on the football team’s bus.

In its work, the institute seeks to be policy-relevant, not just for the UK, but also for other countries and for organisations such as NATO, the EU and the UN. “The aim is to influence policy in some way.”< /p>

“Communication is absolutely key to what we do,” he said – he and his colleagues need to be able to get politicians and other decision-makers to understand the institute’s work and see its relevance.

Research is also important, and it was essential to gather views from diverse perspectives: “You can’t do this from your desk; you have to travel and speak to people,” he said, although he conceded that ‘open source’ research could also be valuable. “A lot of what we do is about making educated guesses… having gathered information from a range of perspectives.”

He looked at the case of North Korea and its ‘nuclear weapons’, explaining to the boys about the deep analysis of photographs, which involves carefully examining images to uncover clues about the North Koreans’ programme. For example, the size of a bomb in a photo with the North Korean Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un would be carefully studied to determine what it means in terms of how the weapon could be launched and the scale of damage it could cause. Examination of signs in the background of images helped to work out where photographs had been taken, while researchers were also on the look-out for subtle signals that could be revealing: in one photo taken by satellite over North Korea’s nuclear-testing facility, workers could be seen playing volleyball – possibly saying: ‘We are not currently preparing a launch, so don’t attack us’.

Mr Joshi then posed some questions around the psychological impact of countries having nuclear weapons, and inter-continental ballistic missiles, in particular. The acquisition of such weapons is considered a ‘game-changer’: it changes thinking in the US and UK, for example, if suddenly we think we can be hit. But, he asked, would we act to protect a third-party nation if we could be hit in retribution?

Mr Joshi also answered several questions from the boys in a Q&A session following his talk:

Q. What happens if you get it wrong?

A. There are significant consequences if signals are misread and incorrect interpretations given to governments, Mr Joshi said. He used Iraq as an example, where there was an assumption that the Iraqis were simply continuing to hide their nuclear programme before the invasion in 2003. The consequences of that action are still being felt today in the region and in our foreign affairs.

Q. Are we at risk of another global conflict?

A. It was difficult to say, according to Mr Joshi. Some are drawing parallels to the period before World War I, but there is a different context. There is uncertainty: “Things in global politics are very fluid right now… things are up in the air.” He gave one example: will the USA under Trump take on China, or strike an agreement with it?

Q. What about India?

A. India has big decisions to make in its approach to China, particularly in the context of the USA, said Mr Joshi .

School Librarian Ciara Murray, who co-ordinates the lecture programme, said: “Mr Joshi was an engaging speaker who put across the complexities of security and international relations issues in a way that was easy to follow and understand. There would have been many more questions if there had been more time!”

QE’s mock General Election generated enthusiastic debate and resulted in an emphatic victory for the Labour candidate – while an old boy of the School has been commissioned to write a poem for the same party in the real poll.

Mock election Labour candidate Alex Beard gained 204 votes – more than twice as many as the second-placed candidate, Sajan Suganth, who amassed 98 votes for the Conservatives.

Anthony Anaxagorou (OE 1994-1999), an award-winning poet who recently led a six-week workshop for Year 9 and 10 pupils as the School’s poet-in-residence, reported on Twitter that his new poem for Labour will be published this week.

Headmaster Neil Enright said: “Mock elections constitute an excellent means of engaging boys’ interest in politics and current affairs. They develop debating skills, while at the same time giving pupils an insight into the democratic process.”

Mr Enright thanked the six boys who stood as candidates, all from Year 10, commending them both for their research and for the passion they evinced during campaigning. He also thanked the poll clerks, who issued ballot papers and checked voters’ names against the register, and the pupils who voted, as well as Head of Politics Liam Hargadon and members of the History department, who organised the election.

The six candidates debated issues central to the real-world election at a special Question Time-style hustings, including austerity, Brexit, education funding and security. During the event, which was was chaired by Head of History Helen Macgregor, an enthusiastic audience eagerly asked the candidates questions. The six boys also cross-e xamined each other, requiring them to think on their feet and testing the depth of their research.

Voting in the mock General Election was open to boys in Years 7–10. (Boys in the older years are currently on study leave for their public examinations.)

The candidates’ campaign involved posters, canvassing and the production of manifestos.

The results were:

• • Alex Beard, Labour – 204

• • Sajan Suganth, Conservative – 98

• • Chris Hall, Independent – 48

• • Adam Gale, UKIP – 40

• • Teg Singh, Liberal Democrats – 33

• • Rivu Chowdhury, Independent – 18

• • Ballot papers not valid: 8.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn paused during election day to publish a new poem by award-winning poet and Old Elizabethan, Anthony Anaxagorou.

Mr Corbyn tweeted a video of Anthony reading aloud the polemical piece, which was commissioned by Labour (see below to read it). The party last night confou nded initial expectations by depriving the Conservatives of their overall majority. He praised the 186-word poem and urged voters to get out to the polling stations: “Powerful words from the poet @Anthony1983 [Anthony Anaxagorou]. Vote before 10pm.”

It is another QE connection for the Labour leader, whose own son, Benjamin, attended the School from 1998 to 2000, albeit against Mr Corbyn’s wishes.

Anthony (OE 1994-1999), whose tweets urged people to vote Labour, was filmed delivering the poem against a red background including the Labour slogan, For the Many, Not the Few.

A rising star of the literary world, Anthony is a poet, publisher and educator, who won the 2015 Groucho Maverick Award, which is given to those who have broken the mould and made a significant contribution to culture and the arts. He recently led a six-week workshop for QE’s Year 9 and 10 pupils as the School’s poet-in-residence.

Last month, in an interview in the Independent, journalist Mattha Busby wrote: “You may not have heard of Anthony Anaxagorou yet, but the wordsmith taking on the establishment is one you’ll want to know.”

Busby highlighted Out-Spoken Press, the poetry press founded by Anthony. “Anaxagorou, like many BAME [Black and Minority Ethnic] poets, didn’t feel like the traditional publishing houses represented the people who looked like him and the kind of poetry he was writing,&rdqu o; Busby wrote.

He interviewed the poet just after Anthony had emerged victorious in a debate at the Oxford Union, where he was speaking against the motion that Kanye West is more relevant than Shakespeare.

The interview recounted how Anthony first wrote a book when he became unemployed. Entitled Difficult Place to be Human, its sales far exceeded expectations, selling 8,000 copies – an impressive figure for a largely unknown poet.

The article recounts his successes as a live performer and his work to establish Out-Spoken Live, as a platform for emerging poets.
Anthony also explained why he had taken a decade-long break from writing soon after winning the inaugural Mayor’s Young Poet award in 2003 – a sensitive teenager, he had been upset when the host of a poetry night in Hampstead made a disparaging remark to him.

Today, Anthony not only manages Out-Spoken and runs school workshops, he is also the father of a two-year-old boy, speaks at universities as a guest lecturer and appears on panels discussing issues such as the under-representation of BAME writers in traditional publishing.

Anthony’s poem for Labour:

Food bank queues bloated with ghostly nurses,

Brilliant scholars of tomorrow

Who can’t afford the charge of learning,

Bleak conditions where broken workers

Clutch misery in their hands

Contracted to remain inside a repeating zero.

They waged war on wheelchairs and the weak,

Harming those already harmed,

Cutting those already bleeding,

Secondary school children with bellies empty

As a brownfield site,

Corporate greed wishes to privatise

The last section of sky,

A minimum wage set by a group of suits

Who’ve always had enough,

Now we have had enough,

Awake and electric, we will vote with our lives,

With the plight of others in mind,

As sure as the echo that follows sound,

There will be no more forgetting,

No more ignoring the hand we hold out

Where a vote is not just an x in a box,

It’s a scream, a fist, a march, a cry,

Mark it with life and progress,

Mark it red,

As the blood that drums against our veins

Mark it red,

As vacant phone boxes and city bricks,

Mark it red,

As the colours of a sunrise,

We’ll never forget.

• • To see Anthony reading it, scroll through Jeremy Corbyn’s twitter feed for 8th June 2017 – https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn

Sixth-formers studying Politics enjoyed a rare opportunity to question former Congressmen during a conference on American politics held at the British Library.

The Year 13 boys had the chance to quiz two recently retired members of the House of Representatives, Dan Benishek, a Republican who represented Michigan, and Democrat Sam Farr, from California.

Head of Politics Liam Hargadon said: “This was a worthwhile and valuable conference, which gave our Politics students exposure both to the latest academic discourse on American politics and to the insights of those who have actually served as politicians.”

Reflecting afterwards on an “intriguing” occasion, pupil Eddy Burchett said: “It is difficult to study American politics if you are not able to put yourself in the shoes of those who are experiencing it. Seeing the ex-members of Congress helped to bring life to my studies – it helps you to appreciate the differences in culture between Britain and the United States.”

The day-long event featured talks by a number of leading academics, each of which was followed by opportunities to hear the opinions of the Congressmen and question them:

• • The Party-Political Balance in Washington – Professor Philip John Davies, Director of the British Library’s Eccles Centre for American Studies, covered: the political geography of recent presidential elections; current disputes within the Democratic party, and forthcoming mid-term elections in 2018

• • Whether the 115th [current] Congress is an effective legislature – Dr Ross English, of King’s College London, explored themes including: checks and balances performed by Congressmen; the current restrictions on the Trump administration (despite its having a Republican Congress), and the politics of filibuster

• • American foreign policy in an age of chaos? Dr Andrew Moran, of London Metropolitan University, spoke on: the American foreign policy of exceptionalism; America’s previous experience of being an ‘indispensable nation’, and an analysis of the ongoing America-North Korea dispute

• • President Trump and the Supreme Court – Professor Robert McKeever, of University College London’s Institute of the Americas, looking at: the shifting political balance of the Supreme Court, the influence of the moderate Justice Anthony Kennedy, and forthcoming Supreme Court cases of interest (Gill vs Whitford, Masterpiece Cake shop vs Colorado Civil rights)

• • The Trump Presidency: An interim assessment – In this concluding talk of the day, Professor Iwan Morgan, also of the Institute of the Americas, centred on: a severe lack of legislation, given the advantage of a unified Government; Trump’s approval rating being the lowest of any president ever in the first 100 days in office, and Trump’s ever-changing administration personnel.

After the formal event had finished, QE pupil Rehaan Bapoo had the chance to question ex-Congressman Benishek regarding the relevance of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution in a modern society. The Second Amendment protects the right of Americans to bear arms and was originally drawn up with a view to the importance of militia as a protection against overweening government authority.

The Congressman replied: “There could still be a militia today – that’s from 200 years ago: if we were to rebel today it would be against the army of the United States. If we were to rebel, we would need to form a militia, and one which is effective is one which has the right arms. Restricting that would leave us helpless to the Government.”