Sashenka

The novel ‘Sashenka’ written by Simon Sebag Montefiore presents a century in Russia, by following the life of a dedicated Bolshevik revolutionary – Sashenka. The novel is split into 3 parts, with the first part focusing on the lead up to the March revolution. Montefiore’s presentation of Russian autocracy is shown through Sashenka’s mother Ariadna Zeletsin. Her unfaithful behaviour, dismissive interest in her daughter, and obsession with materialistic luxuries leads the reader to understand Sashenka’s dedication to the Bolshevik party, as she tries to escape from her mother’s lifestyle. Montefiore presents the Bolsheviks at first as a lacking party, with little resources and members, yet with a strong belief and dedication, shown through Sashenka’s uncle Mendel. Yet during Part 2 1939, the once small Bolshevik party had become an authoritative, dominant one party state, the extent of its growth shown to the reader through leap in time from 1917. Sashenka’s dedication and love for the party is still prevalent, yet her fear is for it is subtly hinted at, with the repeated mentions of the ‘terror years’. The absolute security of Communism in the USSR is demonstrated in the novel – ‘better to shoot a hundred innocent men than let one spy escape, better 1000’. Part 3 of the novel shows the loyalty towards Communism from its party members. Vanya Palitsyn, after being tortured into a false confession and sentenced to death still demonstrates his devotion, shouting ‘long live Stalin’, despite his treatment from the party. Montefiore describes Communism as a religion, and its influence on members such as Satinov shows how deeply rooted it is within such people. Satinov’s inability to tell Katrinka of how he rescued Sashenka’s children outright, since it was a betrayal to the party, shows his faithfulness and fear towards Communism, even 50years later. His web of deception and lies told towards Katrinka of his actions reflect the way he behaved during the era, and how the Communist party performed and acted in the USSR. YC

The Burkini Ban

After many mayors and resorts in France imposed a ban on theburkini many people were left shocked at how such a progressive and democratic country could have such control over women’s clothing. The ban was met by much disagreement and many discussions on social media with the majority of people disagreeing with it as in today’s society it should be up to a woman herself to choose what she would like to wear and this ban took away that freedom.

This world-wide negative reaction led the courts in Nice to make a statement saying that the ban should be removed as it is seen as controlling and oppressive, they have stated that it is a “serious and manifestly illegal violation of fundamental freedoms”. Those who disagreed with the ban compared a burkini to a diving suit in order to highlight the hypocrisy and the weak grounds for the ban. 

Many of those who support the ban claim that it stems from the fear of terrorism - the ban only started after a terrorist attack on a French resort. However, the French courts said that this was not enough to issue such a ban as there is no connection between a woman wearing a burkini and terrorism.  Overall, the ban was not accepted by the general public with most people being open minded enough to see that by controlling a women’s clothing in such a manner it makes France no different to other oppressive countries. K A-K

Butchery: A Mystery of Tudor London

Seeing as one of our topics in AS History is British History 1485-1547, I decided to read the fictional book named Butchery: A Mystery of Tudor London by Kenneth Browning. Set in 1550 London, this book combines my interest in mystery, crime and murder with my curiosity to found out more about Britain's life and society in the 15th and 16th century.

Browning uses the main characters of Thomas and Katherine Whyte and George Harwood to depict to the reader a very vivid and descriptive trail to discover the killer of  brutal murder of a newcomer to the fictional town of Cheapside. This then turns into a hunt to resolve many more alike murders. The first murder was placed outside a candle shop in the Butchery district ( hence the title) the body was found savagely decapitated and the murder weapon of a meat cleaver right next to it; which in those times was not surprising that the murderer did not clean up after themselves.  With the murder weapon in hand and a few other clues, Tom, George and further down the line, Katherine use them to help solve the case.

From reading this book I found out quite interesting facts from the 16th century, such as how unhygienic London was  with Browning stating that the dead body would have been there presumably for hours yet no one seemed to mind the dead body in the street. Additionally in the book it referenced that candles back then were made out of animal fat, yet it smelt better than the air outside, which meant that the air in London in the 1500's must have been very polluted. Another factor I learnt about was religion by 1550 Henry VIII was made Supreme Head of the English church, this signified the end of Catholicism therefore in this book there were many reference to a more Protestant England and it was seen that the church was more involved with the state and law of the country. Apart from that I also learnt little things such as jobs and clothing around that area such as Sheriffs, Constables, Inn keepers and butchers to name a few.

Overall I really liked reading this book and thought it gave me a lot more knowledge of the time we will be studying even if it was fictional and  its interesting way of finding out the killer allowed me to hold focus and really enjoy the book. T C-D

The Labour Leadership Election

Following the vote for Britain to leave the EU on the 23^rd June, Jeremy Corbyn was criticised by Labour MPs for a disappointing campaign to encourage Labour voters to vote Remain. Despite the Labour party’s official position being Remain, many traditional Labour areas, such as Swansea, Sunderland and South Tyneside voted heavily for Brexit and many put this down to Corbyn’s lacklustre campaign, during which he attended ‘limited’ EU events and was reported to have dropped pro-EU sections from speeches. As a result, two Labour MPs – Margaret Hodge and Ann Coffey - submitted a motion of no confidence in Corbyn’s leadership. This was later passed by a secret vote of 172-40, which led to calls for the Labour leader to resign. Hilary Benn – the shadow foreign secretary – was sacked by Corbyn after it had been shown that he was planning a mass resignation of shadow cabinet ministers to force Corbyn to stand down and told him that there was ‘no confidence in his ability to win the next election’. This then triggered 20 members of the shadow cabinet to resign in protest, as well as several other MPs, totalling 63 resignations. However, Corbyn stood firm and said that he would not resign but would stand against any challenger in a leadership contest.

Anyone wishing to challenge the sitting leader of the party must have the backing of 20% of the 229 Labour MPs and 20 MEPs. Both Angela Eagle and Owen Smith launched leadership bids to challenge Corbyn, who was automatically included on the ballot paper without needing to be nominated by MPs. However, amid calls for there to be just one leadership challenger to Corbyn to act as a unity candidate, Eagle and Smith came to the decision that the one with the fewest nominations from MPs would be the one to pull out of the contest. Eagle who had just 72 nominations in comparison to Smith’s 90, subsequently removed her leadership bid and chose to back Smith. The ballot papers for this election have been sent to Labour members since the 22^nd August with the deadline for votes being the 21^st September. The result will then be announced on the 24^th September. A recent poll conducted by YouGov suggests that Corbyn will win this leadership election with a landslide victory, having 62% of support with Smith having just 32%. This is even higher than in the 2015 election where Corbyn won with 59.5% of the vote. Regardless of the outcome of this election, the Labour party faces an uncertain future, as the past few months have unearthed deep divisions within its members. AE

The Women of the Cousins' War

Over the summer I read ‘The Women of the Cousins’ War’ by Philippa Gregory, David Baldwin and Michael Jones. This book is a non-fiction book and focused on the extraordinary stories of Jacquetta of Luxembourg, Elizabeth Woodville and Margaret Beaufort; three women who until now have been largely forgotten by history. The book is based in 16^th century Tudor Britain. I was particularly interested in the story of Margaret Beaufort also known as the ‘King’s Mother’ by Michael Jones who focused both on Margaret’s life, her family history and her role as being the mother of King Henry VII.

Margaret lived an interesting life and faced many unusual encounters throughout her childhood, for example she had an arranged marriage with 7 year old John de la Pole when Margaret was only 6 years old herself. His marriage was arranged by William de la Pole – a man who feared his own future and wanted his son to marry into a wealthy family and have a more powerful claim to the throne. In this marriage King Henry VI, the current king at the time, gave a very generous gift of £25,000 in today’s money so that Margaret could have been dressed magnificently. This fact fascinated me as this amount of money was surprising to be spent on a 6 year old! This early marriage of Margaret interested me as this would be very unusual in today’s century and was interesting to find out a few pages later in the book that the King actually planned to dissolve Margaret’s childhood marriage to John de la Pole and arrange another marriage with Henry VI’s own 22 year old half-brother Edmund Tudor. Within this marriage Margaret had one son at the age of 13! This was very shocking to find out and I later found out that the impact of giving birth at 13 years old left Margaret in a poor medical state and left her unable to have any more children. From my own knowledge of the Tudor times I know that dissolving marriages such as the one Margaret encountered was very unusual.

I also discovered from the book that Margaret was deeply religious as she experienced a vision from Saint Nicholas advising her to choose Edmund Tudor over John de la Pole and this experience of encountering a vision was a remarkable experience for her as she had to confide with her spiritual adviser.

Margaret encountered many interesting experiences throughout her life and her main role in life was to advance their fortunes of her only son Henry Tudor (Henry VII).  EB

Leadsom vs May

As Michael Gove was voted out of the leadership race on Thursday, there are now just two contenders left – Andrea Leadsom and Theresa May. This means that the next Tory leader will be a woman, making her the first female Prime Minister since Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s. But the question remains, which of the two is better suited for the role?

In Thursday’s ballot, May received 199 votes whilst Leadsom won just 84. However, it is suggested that she is still able to gain the necessary support to overtake May by September – especially since the vote on September 9^th is opened to all Conservative members.

Leadsom was a prominent figure during the Leave campaign for the referendum, appearing in two TV debates, during which she was highly praised for her well-reasoned arguments. Several MPs, including Nicky Morgan, believe that the best person to lead this country during the upcoming negotiations for Britain’s exit from the EU is a Brexit voter, as they will fully understand the motives for people voting leave and truly want a full exit from the EU. As a result, this favours Leadsom as May was a Remain supporter. However, May believes that Britain does not need a Brexit-supporting Prime Minister, as the exit from the EU will only be a small part of the duties of the next leader. The day-to-day running of the country and domestic issues will still need to be dealt with. Additionally, a pro-EU Prime Minister may help to unite the Conservatives and the public after a divisive referendum, as both Leave and Remain voters will feel as if their wishes are being respected.

May has been in politics for much longer than Leadsom, having become an MP in 1997, whereas Leadsom was elected in 2010. This greater experience may mean that she is better able to cope with the challenges of being the Prime Minister. May has experience of being a senior Tory, as she is one of the longest-serving Home Secretaries in British history, having held this position since 2010. However, she has been criticised for failing to cut net migration down to 100,000 a year as was promised by the government. On the other hand, Leadsom currently occupies a junior position as the Minister for Energy and Climate Change. She claims this is no disadvantage, as she had many jobs in the financial sector before entering politics, including being a Barclays investment banker, working at a fund management company and founding her own charity. This real-world, finance experience could be more valuable, as she understands the needs of businesses. However, this is something May has too as she used to work at the Bank of England.

Andrea Leadsom has been accused of tax avoidance using offshore accounts and as a result she has been pressurised to publish her tax returns. However, she has not said that she will do this if elected. Theresa May, on the other hand, said that she would. This has led to an untrustworthy image being painted of Leadsom, which is particularly harmful in this uncertain time when the public need to feel as if they can trust the leader of the country. She has also previously supported scrapping all workers’ rights for employees in very small businesses. Whilst this contradicts with her current promises to protect workers’ rights, it does lead us to question if the protection of the particularly vulnerable is a priority for her.

A likeable personality and an ability to reassure and persuade the public is needed to lead a country successfully. Critics of Theresa May say that she lacks charisma, making her unsuitable for this role. She has also been criticised for failing to guarantee the rights of EU nationals to stay in Britain following the referendum, when what these people need now is reassurance and certainty.

Overall, I think that May is the candidate more suited for the leadership, as Leadsom’s lack of political experience is a significant issue and May has shown herself to be both capable and competent in holding senior positions in the party.

AE

EU Referendum talk - Tom Brake MP

A Student Report

23rd June 2016, the day where the final decision will be made by the nation on whether or not the UK should stay in the European Union. It has been 41 years since the last EEC (European Economic Community) Referendum, in which the people made the call to remain in the European Economic Community (Now known as the EU). Has time changed the view of the people?

 

On the 28th of April, we are fortunate enough to invite Tom Brake MP (Carshalton and Wallington) from the Liberal Democrats Party to talk about his views on the issue. He, like the rest of his party believe that the UK should stay in the EU. The ‘Stronger In’ Campaign they call it - ‘Britain is stronger, safer and better off in Europe than we would be out on our own.’

 

Firstly, by staying in, it promotes and maintains prosperity of the economy. Britain receives an average investment of £24 billion per year from Europe. In fact, at this time because of the upcoming EU referendum, certain EU based companies have stalled investments for their UK regional developments in fear of Brexit bringing unsettling impacts to its operations, such as limited trade and increasing taxes. Other than direct investments being made by large cooperation, these businesses provide a lot of jobs to residents of the UK. Airbus, as an example of a European company that manufactures aircrafts, directly employs 15,000 workers in the UK with an estimated number of 100,000 other non-direct employees within the country. Not only that large companies contribute to the UK’s economic development, but almost half of the UK’s export is directed to the rest of Europe. Britain’s trade, regardless of export or import is very dependent on the European Union. The EU have well-established trade deals with 50 non-EU countries including the United States, Korea, and Australia ; whilst the UK have not negotiated a deal on its own for more than 40 years. So what will be the future after Brexit for UK’s trading?

 

Secondly, staying in the EU sustains peace both between the UK and other member states and by defending the UK in unfortunate cases of foreign attacks through NATO. Historically, the UK had come into conflict with France, Spain and Germany very frequently. Some say that the crucial reason for peace in recent decades is the formation of the European Union, installing mutually beneficial relationships between European countries. Furthermore, being part of the EU, guaranteed the UK’s membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Known as NATO in short). It is a ‘political and military alliance with the essential purpose of safeguarding the freedom and security of its members through political and military means’. Thus, as a member of NATO, the UK is protected by the organisation within the EU borders and will receive support from other NATO members against terrorist attacks and foreign invasions.

 

Thirdly, being part of the European Union assures freedom of movement. This is a huge advantage to the UK considering it was estimated by the World Bank in 2014 that around 7-8% of the UK population live permanently abroad. In comparison of 3% of Spanish and 3.8% of French, the UK is actually befitting rather than losing from this agreement. Not only so, but it allows easier travelling within the Europe and also for educational purposes especially aimed at students. Additionally, immigration of working people (usually aged 25 - 35) from other countries adds to the diminishing UK working force because of the gradually greying population. This thus boosts productivity and help support the expanding retired population.

 

Lastly, the EU has bounding legislations on the UK (which excludes the UK Parliament) regarding environmental and welfare protection. Currently, most European laws possess the Doctrine of Supremacy, meaning that it has the presence over UK law. Such cases are able to go beyond the ruling of the Supreme Court into the European Court of Justice. This not only restricts the growing amount of power held by the always sovereign UK Parliament but protects certain civil liberties and settles environmental concerns. For example, environmental targets are being set for minimising air pollution, this includes a ’47% reduction in loss of life expectancy as a result of exposure to particulate matter’ and another ’10% reduction in acute mortalities from exposure to ozone’ by the time of 2020.

 

Despite controversial debates concerning arguments on both sides, a lot of people have yet still not made up their minds. How would the nation decide? Is staying in actually better for our security, our economy and our people? Only time will tell.

 

CS

How can political participation be increased?

Recently, on the 15^th and 16^th of March another student and I were fortunate to attend the Dicey Conference at Trinty college, Oxford, which is run by The McWhirter Foundation. The title of the conference was: ‘Is British Democracy Ripe for Reform?’

We had the opportunity to listen to four different people who looked at different aspects of British democracy but the speaker I am going to focus on is Areaq Chowdhury who is the founder of WebRoots. In his lecture he focused on political participation, examples of where it has improved, how it is changing, examples of where it is low and possible changes that can be made to increase participation.

Firstly, political participation can include a whole range of things from standing for public office to merely voting. It also includes joining pressure groups, picking candidates, voicing your demands by contacting your local MP, writing for newspapers and commenting on articles.

This is where the internet has made such a massive impact on political participation. Social media websites such as Twitter has meant that many people who would have struggled to get their views heard before can contribute to online discussions and these websites also make it easier to start online campaigns. 38 Degrees is an example of this where members come together to promote certain campaigns and make a difference. The government also has a website through which you can petition Parliament. After 10,000 signatures petitions get a response from the government and after 100,000 signatures petitions are considered for debate in Parliament. Some people argue that this is evidence that political participation has not decreased and is merely changing.

Others, however, point to recent elections which show that political participation in the form of voting is still a major issue in UK politics. The main reason that this is such an issue is because if elected officials are not voted into office with a high voter turnout then their mandate to govern is brought into question. Recent police commissioner elections have seen some of the worst voter turnouts. In Gwent (2012) the turnout was just 14.3 per cent overall and one polling station in Newport was visited by no voters at all. Areaq Chowdhury also talked about the 2010 Conservative Liberal Democrat coalition and the questions surrounding its legitimacy and mandate. No one voted for the joint rule of these two parties and so they lacked a mandate.

One way that some people suggest voter turnout may be increased is through the increased use of referendums. This form of direct democracy allows people to have a real impact on the eventual decisions and the argument is that people will therefore be more likely to vote unlike in general elections where they are only picking representatives. However, some referendums have received shockingly low turnouts. For example, the 2011 AV referendum vote received a voter turnout of just 42.2 per cent. This is opposed to the 84.6 per cent voter turnout at the Scottish independence referendum. This shows us that the extent to which people engage with referendums relies heavily on the issue.

Other ideas which have been suggested which could possibly increase political participation include lowering the voting age to 16. People argue that this, combined with increased education, would result in higher turnouts because young people would feel as though they have been given more responsibility as well as being more engaged in issues that they understand. Also, online voting for elections and minor referendums to explain to MPs how to vote in certain situations have also been proposed. Although there are security fears concerning the former and the influence of party whips on important and polarising issues would affect the latter.

I would like to thank The McWhirter Foundation and all of the speakers for their time and if you would like to hear more about political participation you can visit Araeq Chowdhury’s HuffintonPost page here: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/areeq-chowdhury/

ED & ES

Watergate

I have always wondered why scandals are named using the suffix ‘-gate’ – think ‘Plebgate’, ‘Hackgate’ or ‘Bloodgate’. It turns out that the reason stems from Watergate – a scandal that changed American politics and the public’s faith in the president forever.

In May 1972, five men connected with Nixon’s re-election campaign broke into the Democratic National Committee Office in the Watergate building and attempted to tap phones and steal top-secret documents. They were guided by two men from Nixon’s White House in the building opposite by walkie-talkies. The wiretaps failed and so they returned on the 17^th June when they were arrested. It was not clear that they were connected to the re-election campaign.

A spokesman for the White House, when asked about the event a few days later, said that he would not comment on ‘a third-rate burglary’. Two reporters, Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward began to investigate the crime. They, on the other hand, thought that this was ‘a professional type operation’ as the burglars wore surgical gloves and carried thousands of dollars in cash. Now, they are given much credit for exposing the President’s involvement.

At first, Nixon went to great lengths to attempt to cover up the crime: he tried to persuade the CIA to stop the FBI from investigating, evidence was destroyed, staff members who refused to cooperate were fired and it was arranged that the burglars would be given hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep quiet. In August of that year, Nixon gave a speech in which he claimed that he nor his staff were at all involved with the break-in, but FBI agents discovered in October that the break-in was linked to Nixon’s re-election campaign. $25,000 for the campaign was found in the bank account of one of the burglars. However, he was re-elected as President that November taking more than 60% of the vote.

Hearings surrounding the case began in 1973. Alexander Butterfield, former appointments secretary to the President, testified that Nixon had secretly taped every conversation that took place in the Oval Office since 1971. Prosecutors were determined to get hold of the tapes as they would provide solid evidence to prove Nixon’s guilt. Archibald Cox, the assigned special prosecutor for this case, was fired by Nixon when he refused to stop demanding the tapes. Several Justice Department officials resigned in protest at this decision on the 20^th October 1973. This later became known as the Saturday Night Massacre. Eventually, Nixon agreed to hand over written summaries of the tapes, but the White House couldn’t explain why there was an 18 and a half minute gap in one of them.

During a speech the following month, Nixon says: ‘I’m not a crook,’ maintaining his innocence. Amid calls for impeachment, he insisted that he would stay in office, despite increasing unpopularity. He asserted that he had made mistakes but broken no laws and would not release the tapes, as they could harm some of his senior staff members. He also claimed that he had not known of the burglary or the cover-up until early 1973.

On March 1^st 1974, seven of Nixon’s former aides were accused of charges related to the Watergate break-in. Nixon was called an ‘unindicted co-conspirator’ by the jury as they were unsure as to whether they were able to accuse the current president.

The Supreme Court ordered Nixon to hand over the original copies of the tapes in July 1974, despite his pleas for presidential privilege. Meanwhile, the House of Representatives voted to impeach him for obstruction of justice, abuse of power, criminal cover-up and several violations of the constitution. The tapes were released on August 5^th, proving without a doubt his complicity in the Watergate crimes. One conversation especially, from June 23^rd 1972, showed that Nixon had played a leading role in the cover-up. Facing certain impeachment from the Senate, Nixon resigned on August 8^th, becoming the first US president ever to do so.

Nixon’s resignation was only right and really came too late. This scandal led to further distrust of the government at a time when they were already divisive due to the Vietnam War. Had he admitted his crimes straight away rather than devising elaborate plans to cover them up, then the whole political system would not have been tainted with him. Greater openness and honesty was subsequently demanded of American politics by the people and this was met by several reforms.

AE

Suicide of a 10-year girl old In Australia

On Sunday the 6^th of March, a day where we here in the UK celebrated the lives of our mothers, the worlds of many were turned upside down when a 10-year-old Aboriginal girl took her own life in far north Western Australia, the youngest of 19 natives to kill themselves in remote areas of the state since December.

Now let’s pause for a moment because I am sure that you’re all as shocked as I am. I don’t know about you, but my only memories from the age of 10 were those of happiness and excitement over what my future holds. It is absolutely heartbreaking to even try to imagine that a child of such a young age was experiencing so many traumas daily that she lost the will to live and the only way she could see out of her troubles was to take her own life.

What makes this story increasingly gut wrenching is that this tragedy took place because this young life was a victim of domestic violence. The girl was in informal care with her aunt and uncle along with her brother and just last year, her teenage sister had also taken her own life due to the domestic violence they faced.

How much heartbreak can one take?

Mental Health and Child Protection Minister Helen Morton said it was “absolutely tragic” to think that a young child could even consider taking their own life. She said that the young girl had experienced “accumulated trauma and harm” over 10 years and in hindsight more could have been done for her which only makes me question ‘So why was nothing done?’

Domestic violence is serious and destructive. It ruins lives, breaks up families and has such a lasting impact. It is criminal. It has been
around for a very long time, too long in fact and quite simply, something must be done…

Soon!

Deborah Owusu 12.5

By Deborah Owusu 12.5

What do YOU think?