In this week’s WimLearn Lucy D. in Y12 explores whether it is enough to just be listened to, to have someone hear your opinions and concerns? Or does someone have to act on them in order for us to feel satisfied?
In April 2019, David Kestenbaum reported on a study that he’d conducted called ‘The Tattle-Phone’. The premise of the study was that children in a pre-school class at Woodland Hills Private School, California, were given a fake phone that they could use to tell their problems to. For example, if they’d been pinched by one of their friends, the child could go to ‘The Tattle-Phone’ and be able to tell the phone what had happened.
After a month of the study,
Kestenbaum then interviewed the children and asked them what they thought of
‘The Tattle-Phone’. “One girl told me
talking to “The Tattle-Phone” felt like eating ice cream.”[1] The general consensus from the study was that
the children felt better after voicing their frustrations, because they felt that
they were being listened to. However,
there is another side to this. Towards
the end of the month, Kestenbaum noticed that the number of times the phone was
used decreased. Part of this was the
novelty of it wearing off, but there was also the fact that talking to ‘The
Tattle-Phone’ didn’t prompt any action.
The children had noticed that nothing was being done to allay their
concerns, and so had stopped using the phone as often, because they’d lost
trust in it.
The relevance of this study
is that it highlights a very interesting question surrounding the idea of
having a voice, of being able to complain to somebody about your problems, no
matter how big or small. Is it enough to
just be listened to, to have someone hear your opinions and concerns? Or does someone have to act on them in order
for us to feel satisfied?
Within a democracy,
everybody’s voice is heard and everybody gets a chance to make their views and
concerns known, but not everyone will get their views acted on all of the
time. On the whole, people can be
satisfied with the knowledge that their voice has been listened to, even if the
person who they supported has not gained power or if the views of another group
of people are the ones that have been acted on.
Within companies this is also often true, as case studies collated by
the CIPD (Chartered Institute of Personnel Development) in 2021 showed: when
employers wanted to increase inclusivity and job satisfaction, their policies
focussed on improving the systems which employees used to suggest ideas and to
voice their worries, showing how these employers felt that making employees’
voices a priority was key to improving the satisfaction of people who worked for
them.[2]
However, like the children
becoming disillusioned with the telephone, sometimes people or populations
cannot accept that just having a voice is enough. They need to see some action. Examples of this range from coups in Ancient
Rome, to the Chinese Civil War in the 1940s, when people have been expecting
action from those in power and have not got it, so they have changed their
leader for one who will take action. In
these cases, and in the cases of many other uprisings throughout history, it
becomes clear that often it is not enough to simply tell someone your opinions
and concerns, these views have to be acted on in order for you to be satisfied
with the outcome.
It’s paradoxical, because
sometimes the knowledge that your voice has been heard is enough, with no
action required, and sometimes what you want is for someone not just to hear
your concerns but to take action because of them. But this produces the problem that not
everybody’s voices can be acted on all the time, particularly if their views
contradict each other. The choice of
whose voice to act on in any given scenario is difficult at all levels, from
Student Councils, to employers, to Presidents and Prime Ministers. Perhaps simply having our voice heard and
listened to has to be enough, and this is what Barack Obama offered in November
2008 after being elected to serve his first term as President of the USA: “I
will listen to you, especially when we disagree.”
Cara H, Editor of Unconquered Peaks, looks at the key reasons that led David Cameron to hold the 2016 EU referendum.
In this essay I focus on the factors which led to the 2016 Referendum being held, rather than the result. David Cameron called the 2016 EU Referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union (EU) in 2015, giving the British public the right to decide whether their future would be in or out of the EU. They chose to leave the EU by a margin of 51.9% leave, versus 48.1% remain. The UK-EU relationship has always been complicated and fraught, ever since joining in 1973. Factors analysed are ‘important’ as they led to Euroscepticism in British politics or the British public, and/or led to political pressure on Cameron to hold a referendum on EU membership.
I argue that the UK’s historic
relationship with the EU contrasts sharply with their current aims. As for
immigration, general anti-immigration sentiment, and the rise of UKIP (which are
very much linked) strongly contributed to Euroscepticism and political pressure
on Cameron. I also touch on Cameron himself, and his decision making around quelling
his backbenchers.
A transactional vs political
relationship
Britain has
always viewed the EU differently to our European friends. Whilst most of Europe
see themselves as European, Britons are the least likely to have Europe form
part of their identity (see graph below), and do not have the same allegiance
to Europe in comparisons to the German or French. Instead, we view our
relationship with the EU as transactional, through a cost-benefit, economic
analysis. This can be clearly traced back to our original reasons for joining.
(Eurobarometer, 2015)
In the late
1950s, Britain was experiencing a post-war economic rut, while Germany and
France were experiencing strong growth. Britain’s spheres of influence were
declining, and trade with the USA and Commonwealth had decreased. This led to
the belief that joining the bloc might remedy the UK’s economic problems.
Macmillan, the UK Prime Minister at the time, “saw the European Community
as an economic panacea… here was a way in which the British economy could
overcome so many of its problems without resorting to a radical and painful
domestic economic overhaul” (Holmes, n.d.) This analysis of
Britain’s reasons for joining contrasts sharply with the EU’s increasingly
political aims. Though Britain arguably shares the aims of the European Project,
it does not share the same desire to become one with Europe and is interested
in the EU only economically. Having joined the EU for economic reasons, and later
being faced with political integration, increased tensions.
These
tensions between an economic, free trade-based union and a political
integratory one, have been the backdrop of the UK’s interactions with the EU.
For example, the Eurozone Crisis in the UK especially damaged views towards
Europe, not simply because of what happened, but because the ‘cost’ of
remaining a member became highlighted. The heightened tensions within the
political establishments of the UK and the EU have seeped into the general
public psyche. Therefore, the dual nature of the EU as a trade-bloc and a
political union had a negative impact on the UK’s relationship with the EU, by
increasing Euroscepticism, and in turn increasing political pressure on Cameron
to hold a referendum in 2016.
Immigration concerns conflated
with EU
Freedom of
movement is enshrined in the EU’s ‘DNA’. As stated in 1957 in the Treaty of
Rome, it can be defined as ‘EU nationals having the right to move freely within
the European Union and to enter and reside in any EU member state’ (Bundesministeriums des Innern, 2015). Non-EU immigration
levels have always been higher than EU immigration levels. Meaning that the
argument around freedom of movement as a cause of unsustainable immigration has
been greatly exaggerated. It is the perception of EU immigration that has
stuck; the EU became synonymous with immigration of any kind, whether this is misguided
or not.
The increased
level of non-EU and EU immigration put pressure on aspects of British culture
which are not so open to those perceived as ‘non-British’. Integration is often
difficult for those of a different culture. For example, differences in
language, traditions and skills, can lead to those with a strong sense of British
national identity perceiving immigrants negatively, as they threaten what some
see as British culture. And yet this immigration concern is incorrectly conflated
with the EU, as the majority of immigration to the UK has little to do with the
European Union (though one could also argue that all British anti-immigration
sentiment is largely unfounded, regardless of the place of origin). An
excellent paper by Chatham House presents a cross analysis of people’s voting
choices (leave vs remain), compared to their attitudes towards immigration
(both non-EU and EU). The trait that most divided the ‘leavers’ from the ‘remainers’
was their attitudes towards immigration and British culture: nearly ¾ of
‘outers’ agreed that ‘Immigration undermines British culture”.
Social background of ‘inners’, ‘outers’ and undecided voters. (Chatham House, 2015)
Therefore, this cultural negativity towards immigration manifests itself in many ways, one of which is opposition to the EU, through the conflation of (any) immigration with EU membership. One of the EU’s most sacred principles is freedom of movement, and the growing number of immigrants since the UK’s membership of the EU has only increased this Euroscepticism, which increased the likelihood of EU-UK referendum.
UKIP’s sudden rise
UKIP was
founded in 1991 and can be categorised as a single-issue party, with the sole
aim of bringing the UK out of the EU, via a referendum. Once Nigel Farage
became leader of UKIP in 2006, it grew in popularity, with gains in the 2013
local elections (22% of the vote), two Conservative Party defections to UKIP in
2013, and impressive results in both the 2014 European Parliament elections
(largest number of seats with 24) and the 2015 General Election (12.5% of the
popular vote). They were most certainly on the up.
Table to show distribution of seats in the European Parliament in 2014.
UKIP’s rise
led to Cameron’s electoral position becoming increasingly threatened: UKIP is a
right-wing party, whose voters were more likely to be white and older than that
of Labour’s electorate. Therefore, UKIP was able to split the Conservative vote
(Martill, 2018). In 2014, UKIP managed to gain over a
quarter of votes in European Parliament elections, outnumbering the
Conservatives. Understandably, this was a clear threat to the Conservative
Party at the time. Though support for UKIP was clearly influenced by other
factors, (i.e factors that pushed voters towards UKIP), UKIP managed to harness
Euroscepticism in the general public, and transform this into meaningful
political pressure on David Cameron to hold a referendum. The nature of UKIP’s
rise – sudden, large, and at a time when the Conservatives did not have a
majority (pre-2015 General Election), was a very important factor in leading to
the referendum. Arguably, UKIP’s pressure on Cameron led him to hold an
election, lest he lose public and potentially party support, and inevitably, a
general election. Therefore, due to the rise of UKIP, a party based on support
for a referendum on the EU, Cameron was incentivised to put a referendum
promise in his party’s manifesto in 2015 and hold one in 2016, in order to keep
his Conservative Government in office.
Cameron’s desire
for a quick fix
The Prime
Minister is by far the main source of authority over whether to hold a
referendum or not, so analysing Cameron is important in answering this essay’s
question. Cameron’s decision around party management was an impactful factor in
leading to the 2016 EU Referendum.
The promise
of a referendum can be seen as a ‘quick fix’ method of appeasement to the
Eurosceptic backbenchers. As is clear from the rise of the Conservative
Eurosceptic faction, heightened tensions were forming in the Conservative Party
from 2013 onwards, and this threatened the Party’s ability to govern. Hence,
Cameron felt compelled to manage his party over Europe, by delegating the
decision to the public. When the referendum was initially promised in June
2013, Cameron was concerned with stopping the backbenchers rebelling in the
coalition. He wanted to silence the Eurosceptic wing of the party that had
caused so much trouble for the party over the years; an ‘easy fix’ to a
longstanding problem (Martill, 2018). A comment that encapsulates this, is
from Donald Tusk (former President of the European Council), recounting his
meeting with Cameron after the referendum was announced in 2013:
“Why did you decide on this referendum, [Tusk recounts asking Cameron this] – it’s so dangerous, even stupid, you know, and he told me – and I was really amazed and even shocked – that the only reason was his own party… [He told me] he felt really safe, because he thought at the same time that there’s no risk of a referendum, because his coalition partner, the Liberals, would block this idea of a referendum” (BBC, 2019).
Clearly,
party management was very influential in Cameron’s decision-making. Therefore,
the decision desire to repair the divide in his party, was hugely impactful in
leading to the 2016 EU Referendum.
In
conclusion, the nature of our relationship with the EU, immigration sentiment, UKIP
and Cameron’s decision making were the most important factors in leading to the
EU Referendum. Especially impactful was UKIP’s ability to harness
Euroscepticism into political pressure. But arguably, the end of our EU
membership was spelt out from the beginning.
Works Cited
BBC, 2019. Inside Europe: Ten
Years of Turmoil. [Online]
Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0c1rjj7
[Accessed 29 06 2021].
Bundesministeriums
des Innern, f. B. u. H. B., 2015. Freedom of movement. [Online]
Available at: https://www.bmi.bund.de/EN/topics/migration/law-on-foreigners/freedom-of-movement/freedom-of-movement-node.html
[Accessed 29 06 2021].
Chatham
House, 2015. Britain, the European Union and the Referendum: What Drives
Euroscepticism?. [Online]
Available at: https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/publications/research/20151209EuroscepticismGoodwinMilazzo.pdf
[Accessed 9 20 2021].
Eurobarometer,
2015. National versus European identification, s.l.: s.n.
Holmes,
M., n.d. The Conservative Party and Europe. [Online]
Available at: https://www.brugesgroup.com/media-centre/papers/8-papers/807-the-conservative-party-and-europe
[Accessed 9 20 2021].
Martill,
B., 2018. Brexit and Beyond: Rethinking the Futures of Europe. London:
UCL Press.
Lily in Year 13 wrote this
article just before the start of Lockdown 2 in November 2020 in the UK. As we
now gradually come out of Lockdown 3 some 7 months later, how much of the
article rings true?
As of the 23rd March
2020 the UK was placed under lockdown and has been moving in and out of
lockdowns and restrictions ever since. This is likely to cause an economic
slowdown and possibly plunge the UK into recession over the coming years
because when people are in lockdown consumption and aggregate demand in the UK
is likely to fall. There will be impacts on workers and the UKs supply of goods
domestically and from abroad which is also likely to negatively impact the
economy. Overall, the UK and its economy is likely to suffer as a result of
Covid-19.
Possible impacts
Firstly, aggregate
demand in the UK will be hit by the virus as when people are quarantined they
will be unable to go out and spend, especially as recently all shops selling
non-essential goods along with bars and restaurants have been told to close
meaning this spending in these sectors won’t be possible anymore. This will be
added to by the low consumer confidence that is currently present as in
uncertain times people save their money as a safety net so they will be able to
support themselves in uncertain times.
Consumption patterns
will also change, meaning goods with an income elasticity of demand between 0
and 1 are likely to see little change in demand as these goods are classed as
necessities. Some might even see a rise in demand in the short term as people
panic buy (think back to scenes of toilet roll panic buying in April 2020).
However, goods with
an income elasticity over one are likely to see a decrease in demand as these
are classed as luxuries so people won’t be prioritising purchasing these items
when economics conditions are uncertain. This means that overall consumption
will decrease as people don’t have the opportunity to spend as much out
shopping or on luxuries and are also likely to be more cautious with their
spending by nature. This fall in consumption will also be exacerbated if
people’s incomes are negatively impacted, such as if they were previously
working in the gig economy, perhaps on zero hour contracts or with irregular,
situation-based income.
These people would be
relying on their savings or help from the government for their money, meaning
their spending and consumption is likely to fall. To encourage more spending
the bank of England has dropped interest rates to a new record low 0.1% to
encourage people to go out and spend instead of save as they will be receiving
very little gain from letting their money sit in a bank account. Also, as if
demand falls whilst there is still a constant level of supply prices of goods
and services are likely fall. This can be seen through the drop in the price of
flights as airlines suffer a shortage in demand. For example a flight from
California to London would have previously cost $1000 can now be purchased for
as low as $246 dollars. However, this drop in prices is likely to have a
limited effect on demand because of the uncertainty currently which also means
low interest rates are likely to have a limited effect in changing people’s
behaviour. Recent travel bans will also limit the impact lower prices in the
airline industry since people are unable to take advantage of these lower
prices when they are unable to travel or will be deterred by quarantine times.
This means that overall aggregate demand and consumption in the UK is likely to
fall because there will be fewer opportunities for people to spend but mostly
because of consumer uncertainty. This will negatively impact the UK economy.
Aggregate supply in
the UK will also be impacted by the virus, impacting costs along with exports
if less is being produced domestically. A fall in domestic supply could result
in cost push inflation as if demand levels for some products remain steady
prices would have to rise to make up for the limited stock or production due to
covid-19 restraints on supply. This fall in supply could be caused if workers
have to self-isolate and cannot go to work, meaning a company cannot operate at
full capacity causing a shift inward on their PPF.
Companies might also
have trouble receiving stock from other countries if their production has been
impacted by the virus which could prevent production in domestic businesses.
This is likely to hit the manufacturing industry especially hard as these rely on
parts from abroad, such as the car company Jaguar which is now running out of
parts it would usually ship from China[1],
and people coming to work as it is very difficult to work from home if you
worked in a factory. This effect on supply could be decreased depending as the
UK has a flexible labour market, meaning people can easily move from job to job
meaning businesses won’t be hit as hard by the shock as resources (people) can
be reallocated more easily compared to France where the labour market is very
inflexible.
This effect on supply
also depends how flexible the product markets are as if a company could switch
supplier there would be minimal effect especially if this new supplier was
located domestically instead of abroad. There might also be a time lag if
producers had stockpiled meaning it would take longer to run out of stock
however is still likely to happen in the long term. In the long run this
outbreak could cause LRAS curve to shift inwards if there is less investment as
companies will be working harder to keep afloat rather than investing or
spending on R&D meaning less will be invested into the countries long term
productivity.
This can be seen
though the fall in the share prices of the FTSE 100 as on 9th March
2020 the average prices of shares fell 8%[2],
the worst day since the 2008 financial crisis with £144bn wiped off its
combined value. These top 100 companies were likely to be some of the largest
investment spenders. Although, as the UKs economy is mainly based on financial
services, many can work from home meaning domestic supply issues may not affect
the economy as much as countries that rely heavily on manufacturing such as
China and Germany shown as Chinese economy shrank by 6.8% in the first quarter
of 2020, the first contraction since 1976. The government could also reduce the
effect on domestic supply by subsidising companies so they are able to invest
in the technologies they need and keep production lines running, or as interest
rates are low companies could take out a loan to invest. Meaning there are
options for companies to try and uphold supply and investment. However, there
is still the underlying issue of people not being able to go to work because of
self-isolation. This will have a huge impact on supply in the UK and therefore
the economy as if products aren’t being made they cannot be consumed and if
they aren’t being consumed profits will fall leaving companies to have less
money to invest, impacting supply in the short term along with productivity in
the long term.
Overall, the impact
of the virus is going to be wide-ranging across the world and in the UK,
impacting both supply and demand. Impacts of the fall in supply in the short
term will be slightly counteracted by the fall in aggregate demand as if both
curves shift inwards there will be a new equilibrium point of production and
cost push inflation is likely to be limited. However, the nation’s productivity
and output will decrease which means the UKs GDP is likely to fall
significantly, plunging the UK into a recession. The British government are
spending more to combat some of the impacts however this is unlikely to cover
the full economic impact and will see a rise in the government budget deficit
as a result. This also makes it likely that we will see the government to
following a policy of austerity over the coming years, meaning people in the UK
and the UKs economy are likely to be hit hard by this crisis. However, as the
virus is a global pandemic, it is likely that its impact will also be mirrored
across the rest of the world.[3]
2021 Update
The UK Government introduced the
furlough scheme to support workers and businesses who were unable to run as
normal owing to the impact of the virus. Up to April 2021 this has cost over
£61 billion[4],
with 4.7 million jobs impacted. Government spending is at the highest figure
ever seen outside of periods of war.[5]
With increasing numbers of the
population having now been vaccinated against the virus, and the recently
announced reopening of restaurants from 17 May 2021[6], there is a feeling that
we are gradually moving out of the crisis and that normality is becoming
closer.
However, the vast spending seen
since the crisis started in January 2020 will almost certainly mean that a
return to a pre-pandemic life will be a challenge and that further austerity
will be required to settle the books. The need to ‘level up’ the country, as
announced by the Prime Minister on 11 May 2021[7], will be central to life
as we know it for many years to come. Whether this can be achieved will be
subject to criticism and debate for the significant future.
Sophia (Year 13) looks at how European colonialism spread disease to
Australia and New Zealand.
Although the tragedies brought by actions of colonisers such as slavery,
wars and other abysmal treatment of native populations caused many deaths, one
of the biggest killers of this action was the introduction of new diseases to
which natives had no immunity due to their previous isolation from the European
invaders.
Image from Pexels
Between 1200 and 1500 Europe itself was suffering several pandemics due
to the growth of unsanitary cities, creating the perfect environment for
infection, and also increasing contact with the Old World, such as through
Mongol and Turkish invasions, which exposed Europe to major disease outbreaks.
For example, between 1346-51, the Black Death killed off about a third of
Europe’s population. As relatively disease-hardened populations in Europe emerged
from this, although local epidemics emerged after 1500, none were really as bad
as the years before it, rather such epidemics after this date were in colonised
nations. Here I will focus on the colonisation of Australia and New Zealand,
with different native peoples (the Aborigines and the Maoris) and with
different effects of diseases.
New Zealand
Imported diseases began to impact many Maori from the 1790s. These
diseases were those such as viral dysentery, influenza, whooping cough,
measles, typhoid, venereal diseases, and the various forms of tuberculosis.
Missionaries and observers reported massive death rates and plummeting birth
rates. However, unlike the Americas and Australia, there is a big chance that
the deaths as a result of foreign disease are widely exaggerated.
Rather, such exaggeration labelled the Maori as a dying race (a view
which persisted to 1930), which helped to project the British Empire into New
Zealand in 1840. One of the reasons for which the effect of disease was
probably the smallest was simply the distance from Europe to New Zealand; it
was a natural quarantine. The trip took 4 months or more, meaning that the sick
either died or recovered; either way they were often no longer infectious on
arrival. Therefore, the most pernicious European diseases – malaria, bubonic
plague, smallpox, yellow fever, typhus and cholera – did not manage to transfer
to New Zealand.
Image by Dan Whitfield via Pexels
Another factor which fostered the gross magnification of the demise of
the Maori was the comparison in birth rates; missionary families were extremely
large – the fourteen couples who went to New Zealand before 1833 had 114
children. Therefore, it was easy to amplify the decline in Maori birth rates
into something far more serious than it was. The population of Maori on contact
with the Europeans are very unreliable and, in most cases, wild guesses, and
also allow for the misjudgement of the effect of the disease. For example, one
estimate for 1769 based upon archaeological science gives an estimated
pre-contact birth rate of 37 per thousand per year, and a death rate of 39[1],
obviously impossible given that it leaves the Maori population in the
minus-thousands. However, more moderate calculations suggest an average decline
of 0.3% per year between 1769 and 1858[2].
Therefore, although the Maori population somewhat suffered as a result of these
diseases, there is a tendency to exaggerate this, to portray them as ‘weaker’
peoples, and a dying race, allowing for easier colonisation.
Australia
Although Australia was initially discovered by the Dutch, it was a fleet
of British ships which arrived at Botany Bay in January 1788 to establish a
penal colony[3]. European disease spread to areas of
Australia, even before Europeans had reached those parts. For example, there was
a smallpox epidemic near Sydney in 1789, wiping out around half of the
Aborigines there.[4]
Photo by Damon Hall from Pexels
Some historians claim that this was acquired through contact with
Indonesian fishermen in the far north, which then spread, and others argue that
it is likely that the outbreak was a deliberate act by British marines when
they ran out of ammunition and needed to expand their settlement. Indeed,
unfortunately colonial thinking at the time placed Europeans as the ‘superior
race’; a book written by William Westgarth in 1864 on the colony of Victoria
included: ‘the case of the Aborigines of Victoria confirms…it would seem almost
an immutable law of nature that such inferior dark races should disappear’.
Therefore, as with New Zealand, description of the natives as a ‘dying race’
was an important tool for colonisation, meaning purposeful introduction and
spread of some diseases is not too hard to believe.
Smallpox spread between Aboriginal communities, reappearing in 1829-30;
according to one record killing 40-60% of the Aboriginal population.[5] In addition, during the mid-late 19th
century, many Aborigines in southern Australia were forced to move to reserves;
the nature of many of these institutions enabled disease to spread quickly and
many even began to close down as their populations fell.
Conclusion
Although one must be wary of statistics about native mortality rates in
both countries, given the European tendency to exacerbate the decline in native
populations, it is fair to say that the decline in Aboriginal populations was
much higher than that of the Maori in New Zealand, although wars also massively
contributed to this.
While roughly 16.5% of the New Zealand population is Maori, only 3.3% of
Australians are aboriginal, and it is safe to say that disease influenced this
to some extent. So why was there such a difference between the effects of
diseases in these countries, seemingly close together and both colonised by the
British? A very large reason was smallpox; this was by far the biggest killer
in Australia, but never reached New Zealand. The nature of the existing native
communities was also important; there were 200-300 different Aboriginal nations
in Australia, all with different languages, but the Maori were far more united,
and often seen to be a more ‘advanced’ society, and therefore were never
forcibly placed into reserves; which is where a lot of the spread of disease
took place.
In addition, events in New Zealand occurred much later than Australia,
after slavery had been outlawed, meaning there was a slightly more humanitarian
approach, and there is less evidence to suggest purposeful extermination of the
Maori. This is not to discount any injustices suffered by the Maori; indeed,
many did die from European disease, and in both cases the native populations
were treated appallingly and were alienated from their land.
The influence of European disease was overwhelmingly more powerful in
Australia. However, one must approach statistics about the effect of disease on
native peoples with caution, as Europeans tended to exaggerate this area to
portray such peoples as ‘dying races’, a device often used to support
colonisation.
Bibliography
Ian Pool, Te Iwi Maori (New Zealand: Oxford University Press),
1991
James Belich, Making Peoples (New Zealand: Penguin Books), 1996
John H. Chambers, A Traveller’s History of New Zealand and the South
Pacific Islands (Great Britain: Phoenix in association with the Windrush
Press), 2003
[1] cited in Ian Pool,
Te Iwi Maori (New Zealand: Oxford University Press), 1991, 35
Lucy (Year 10) researched one of Germany’s greatest young heroines and explored her bravery in standing up to the brutal Nazi regime. She entered this for the Oxford German Olympiad and we wish her all the best!
Sophie Scholl war eine mutige junge Frau die ein wichtiger Widerstandkämpfer gegen die Nazis war. Sie und ihr Bruder Hans waren Schlüsselmitglieder der ‘weißen Rose’, einer Widerstandsgruppe von Studenten der Universität München. Meiner Meinung nach ist sie eine sehr positives Vorbild weil ich sie beeindruckend und stark finde.
Sophie wurde am Mai 1921 geboren. Ihr Vater war Bürgermeister einer idyllischen Stadt, das Forchtenberg hieß, deshalb galt ihre Familie als Oberschicht. Sie hatte viele Geschwister, und ihr Bruder Hans war besonders an der weißen Rose beteiligt.
Als die Nazis 1933 an die Macht kamen, war Sophie und ihre Geschwister aufgeregt und engagiert. Sophie trat dem Bund Deutscher Mädel bei, jedoch missbilligten ihre Eltern, besonders ihr Vater, dies. Während des Abendessens hatten sie hitzige Diskussionen zu diesem Thema.
Als Großbritannien Deutschland den Krieg erklärte, wurden seine älteren Brüder losgeschickt, um an der Front zu kämpfen.
Später, entschied sich Sophie, dass sie Biologie und Philosophie studieren wollte. Dazu, musste sie Zeit im RAD (Reichsarbeitsdienst) verbringen. Sie hasste es. Sie hasste das militärische Regime und betäubende Routine, und sehnte sich nach einem Ende des Krieges. Ihre Zweifel am Nazi-Regime wuchs.
Sophie war nicht die einzige mit diesen Gedanken. Ihr Bruder Hans und seine Freunde hatten das Elend an der Front gesehen und hatten begonnen, das System in Frage zu stellen.
Seine Freunde und er fingen an, Flugblätter in München zu drücken und zu verteilen und riefen um Hilfe. Sophie bewunderte ihren Mut und verlangte, ihrem Bruder zu helfen.
Die weiße Rose war eine kleine Widerstandsgruppe mit großen Konsequenzen. Mit großem Aufwand haben sie ihre Botschaften mit bedeutlichen Erfolg an Professoren, Autoren, Freunde und andere weitergegeben.
Nach ihrem Erfolg begann die Gruppe, Dinge wie “Nieder mit Hitler” und “Freiheit” an die Mauern um München zu schreiben. Dies alles war einem enormen persönlichen Risiko ausgesetzt.
Hans und Sophie, die dieselbe Universität besuchten, verteilten weiterhin Flugblätter an Studenten.
Dann kam der Moment, der alles veränderte ; Sophie warf aus umstrittenen Gründen einen riesigen Stapel Flugblätter um, die in die Halle darunter fielen.
Leider wurde dies vom Hausmeister, einem überzeugten Nazi, gesehen, der die Gestapo alarmierte, und sie wurden verhaftet.
Nach ihrem Gerichtsverfahren wurden die drei zum Tode verurteilt. Auch danach machte Sophie klar, dass sie nichts bereute.
For the annual ISMLA Original Writing Competition,Tilly (Year 10) explored how German authors have used the stage to respond to political ideologies over the last century and into the present day.
Über die Jahre wurden Theaterstücke als ein Mittel genutzt, um einen Einblick in das politische Klima der Zeit zu geben. Deshalb wird dieser Essay untersuchen, was Dramatiker uns über Faschismus und Diktaturen in Europa, insbesondere in Deutschland, lehren können.
Ein berühmtes Beispiel eines aufschlussreichen Dramatikers ist Bertolt Brecht, der über den zweiten Weltkrieg Theaterstücke geschrieben haben, als er in dieser Zeit verbannt wurde. Die nationalsozialistische Partei, die während des zweiten Weltkriegs mit absoluter Macht Deutschland geleitet hat, war eine faschistische politische Partei. Sie hatte auf die deutsche Gesellschaft einen negativen Effekt, was in den Theaterstücken von Bertolt Brecht gesehen werden kann. Zum Beispiel “Furcht und Elend des Dritten Reiches”, das das erste öffentlich anti-nationalsozialistische Theaterstück von Bertolt Brecht war. Deshalb ist er ein gutes Beispiel eines Dramatikers, der von dem politischen Klima beeinflusst wurde.
Es gibt im Moment viele ähnliche Dramatiker. In den letzten Jahren hat die AfD – eine umstrittene rechtsgerichtete Partei – in Deutschland Einfluss gewonnen, deshalb haben viele Dramatiker über dieses Problem Theaterstücke geschrieben – zum Beispiel “Fear” von Falk Richter. Es gibt auch Theaterstücke über politische Polarisierung und die extremen Rechten. Zum Beispiel “Rechtes Denken” von Konstantin Küspert, “Graf Öderland/Wir sind das Volk” von Volker Lösch und ‚Märtyrer‘ von Marius von Mayenburg. Also, wegen der AFD und Rechtsextremisten sowohl als auch Linksradikalen gibt es viel Polarisierung. Aber gibst es in Deutschland Faschismus oder Diktaturen? In Deutschland hat es auch einen Anstieg anti-nationalsozialistischer Theaterstücke gegeben, zum Beispiel “Stolpersteine Staatstheater” von Regina Dura und Hans-Werner Kroesinger. Daher kann man schlussfolgern, dass diese Dramatiker denken, dass Faschismus und Diktaturen immer noch für Deutschland Probleme sind, weil die Nazis die gefährlichste Art von Faschismus repräsentierten und von einem entsetzlichen Diktator geleitet wurden. Der Fokus liegt mehr auf Faschismus, weil Diktatur in Deutschland unmöglich wäre. Denn in Deutschland gibt es das Grundgesetz, das sicherstellt, dass keine Institution– die Legislative, Rechtsprechende oder Exekutive – zu viel Macht haben kann.
Deshalb können wir von Dramatikern lernen, dass Faschismus immer noch ein großes Problem ist, aber Diktaturen gehören der Vergangenheit Deutschlands an.
Alex in Year 13 writes a short introduction to foreign aid, highlighting some of the successes and problems that can appear from the charitable act of giving.
Instilled in us from a young age is the principal that we should help those who are in extreme need. And what could be simpler? From charity mufti days and bake sales, this theory underpins social behaviour in our modern day. It is indeed this principal that drives support for foreign aid.
In the words of Roger Riddell, ‘The belief that aid is a ‘good thing’ is sustained by the assumption that the resources or skills that aid provides do make a difference to those being assisted’. However, the impact of such aid on recipient countries is not always as positive as it may initially appear.
As the effects of climate change enhance the frequency and severity of natural disasters, we often see foreign aid expenditure in an emergency form. Altruism of this kind is uncontested as in the short-term these humanitarian responses are overwhelmingly positive. However, it is with sustained aid that potential problems arise.
Overtime, foreign aid has expanded from small beginnings to become a large and complex global enterprise. Development cooperation (as foreign aid is also called) is now established as an integral part of international relations, with many donor countries contributing at a UN target rate of 0.7% of their gross national income. For the UK, this sum stood at £14.6 billion in 2018. As can be seen from the charts below, few countries meet this target.
Net development assistance by country (total million US$ in 2015)
However, if we compare this data above with looking at this giving as a percentage of GDP, a rather different picture emerges:
For many people, this huge economic contribution to foreign aid and development is a triumph in the world of humanitarianism and society as a whole. An ethical theory linked closely with the topic of foreign aid is utilitarianism. To put it simply, this is the notion that ‘moral life should be guided by the objective of trying to achieve the maximum happiness for the greatest number of people.’
As stated by Paul Streeten, ‘a dollar redistributed from a rich man to a poor man detracts less utility than it adds, and therefore increasing the sum total of utility’. This argument is comprehensive and easy to wrap your head around, which explains why foreign aid is so often short sightedly seen as a win-win situation.
Unfortunately, this is not always the case. There has been evidence of several key factors that can inhibit the aggregate impact of foreign aid.
The first problem arising with aid is its potential for misuse. Additional resources in the hands of potentially corrupt governments are significant impediments to optimum utilization of funds. This is because the fungibility of aid could enable the financing of non-developmental projects against the interest of the population. Hence, aid itself has, in some cases, the perverse ability to create negative effects on recipient economies.
Secondly, there are limits associated with aid and a country’s absorptive capacity. As the volume of aid increases, it is subject to diminishing marginal utility. In basic terms, the effect is as if I gave you one chocolate bar that you enjoyed consuming. And perhaps a couple more wouldn’t do you any harm… but once I’ve given you 100 chocolate bars, each individual bar’s worth has decreased along the way. In this way it can be seen than after a certain point (called the absorptive capacity threshold), providing more aid becomes completely ineffective.
Finally, fluctuations in aid inflows are external shocks to vulnerable economies, which plan expenditures based on promised aid commitments. When a highly dependent country’s aid is not given in full, this can damage future growth prospects significantly.
From all this, we can gather that the future of aid-giving and its associated policies may need modifying to ensure aid is given and used in the most efficient and appropriate ways possible, enabling it to help those who are most in need.
Lucy in Year 10 looks at issues surrounding climate change and the damage our current ways of living are having on the planet. Might geothermal energy offer the UK, and the world, a solution for us to clean up our act?
We are in the midst of a climate crisis; the UK government has recently made a commitment to achieve net zero emissions by 2050 to help stop further damage to the environment. The burning of fossil fuels to generate power is a significant contributor to the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions, so the use of renewable energy sources is critically important to meeting this commitment to achieve net zero emissions. There are already many established sources of renewable energy, such as wind, solar and tidal power, but geothermal energy might be an unexpected solution to the UK’s problems.
Geothermal energy: a solution to a cleaner future? Picture from https://www.britannica.com/science/geothermal-energy
Geothermal energy uses the natural heat from within the Earth’s crust to heat water and create steam. This steam then powers a turbine in a similar way to the production of energy using fossil fuels, with the key exception that the heat comes from the earth instead of from the burning of coal, oil or gas. So, like other forms of renewable energy, geothermal energy produces far less CO2 than fossil fuels do.
The key advantage geothermal energy offers over many other forms of renewable energy is consistency. Solar cells and wind turbines rely on climate and weather conditions to operate, which means that the amounts of energy produced varies and can be unreliable. Geothermal energy doesn’t have that problem. No matter what happens, a geothermal plant will always produce the same amount of energy. The problems caused by inconsistent energy provision have already been seen; only weeks after setting a new wind power generation record, a breezeless day in January 2021 resulted in a shift back to fossil fuelled power and a tenfold surge in spot energy prices.[1]
Geothermal energy is currently in the news due to a recent announcement to build the first ever geothermal plant in the UK, in Porthtowan, Cornwall. It will produce enough energy to power 10,000 homes[2] – enough to power almost all of Birmingham. So, why don’t we build them everywhere?[3]
While geothermal energy does have significant benefits, it also comes with its own set of problems. The most prominent of these is the very specific characteristics of the Earth’s crust needed to be able to superheat the steam and power the turbines. As opposed to somewhere like Iceland, on the boundary of a tectonic plate, these locations are few and far between in the UK. Some will unfortunately be located in populous areas, where the negative aesthetics of a power station would outweigh its benefits. Another worrying fact about geothermal plants is that their construction, and the drilling of geothermal wells into the earth’s surface, have been the cause of several earthquakes over the past decade (5.5 magnitude earthquake in Pohang, South Korea in 2017). While this is less of a risk for the UK, being geologically more stable, it still is a factor to be considered. I would hasten to add that this risk is less than that of CO2 from fossil fuels or the toxic clean-up of a nuclear power station!
While geothermal energy plants are undoubtedly an effective and positive use of the Earth’s natural resources to create a sustainable and consistent supply of energy, the problems that their construction and capabilities raise mean that it would be impossible for them to become the sole provider of the UK’s energy. However, it is undeniable that their existence and use could aid the UK greatly in our battle against greenhouse gases and the climate crisis. While geothermal energy cannot solve the climate problem alone, it should definitely be a part of the UK’s, and the world’s, solution to the threat that is the climate crisis.
This week’s WimLearn post is an extract from Hannah B’s EPQ about Belgium’s political system.
According to the Belgian constitution, citizens of this European country have the right to freedom of language, since its independence on 4th October 1830, and can, therefore, choose which language to conduct their daily lives in. Article 30 states that ‘only the law can rule on matters involving language, and only for acts of the public authorities, and in legal matters’ (Vermeire Elke, Documentation Centre on the Vlaamse Rand, 2010). The freedom of language for citizens also complicates political matters, in which national polling occurs because votes from both language-speaking sides must be collated and moderated for a fair system.
Additionally, article 4 states that “Belgium has four linguistic areas: The French-speaking area, the Dutch-speaking area, the bilingual area of Brussels Capital and the German-speaking area.” Around 55% of the Belgian population belong to the Flemish community, whilst 40% belong to the Walloon community, and just 1% to the German Community. However, 16% have Dutch as their second language, whilst 49% have French as their second language. Overall, this means that for the national government, ratios must be put in place to ensure that one linguistic group does not outweigh the other on the basis of their population.
Above: Image from https://brussels-express.eu/wacky-world-belgian-politics/
Over the past 20 years, Belgium has not seen much political stability, largely due to their language divide. Belgium has a multi-party system, which means that political parties are often required to form coalition governments with each other. An issue that immediately arises when a coalition government must form is the parties’ cooperation.
In Belgium, this is made difficult by the languages that the two sides speak. Before political decisions are even made, the efficiency of the decision, that is who should form a coalition, is hindered. Whilst the regions are able to communicate with each other, both sides have preconceptions, and therefore hesitations to working together. These doubts are supported by the fact that, previously, Belgium has been without a government for 541 days, due to disagreements. The affect the language divide has on cooperation is seen here.
The fact that instant interpretation is often required would imply that the reason for Belgium’s political instability is due to their language divide, however this is not the case. There are 43 administrative arrondissements, which are an administrative level between the municipalities and the provinces. Each party must form a list of candidates for each of these arrondissements.
Arrondissements are split so that Flemish-speaking and French-speaking citizens will not fall under the same one. Many rules surrounding the use of language are put in place to minimise disagreement, and regional superiority. During political campaigns, there are restrictions on the use of billboards, and they only last for around one month. In national politics, politicians can choose to speak any of the three official languages, and the parliament will provide simultaneous interpretation. In this case, it would suggest that language is not the issue, but, instead, conflict of interest. All other official correspondence, such as tax returns, or passport requests, must be conducted in the official language of the region. At the age of 18, all citizens are automatically placed on the electoral roll, and are subject to compulsory voting.
Ms Suzy Pett, Assistant Head (Teaching and Learning) at WHS, looks back at the end of the first year of the new PPE course studied by Year 10 pupils at WHS.
We are at the end of the inaugural year of our PPE course. We wanted students to look outwards and question the ideologies – political, economic, philosophical – that are influential in shaping our world. One of our school’s key objectives is for each student to “stride out’ and be prepared to “shape the society in which she lives and works’. Our PPE course has certainly helped our Year 10s become savvy and robust thinkers on important global, national and personal issues.
The course ended with students writing their own articles on a topic of their choice. The array of interests was kaleidoscopic! Articles ranged from Kantianism vs Utilitarianism; to immigration; to beauty; to Plato; to student loans; to voting…to Trump…and everything in the middle (including, of course, the impact of Coronavirus). There is no doubt that students have developed mature, thoughtful and increasingly bold voices on these matters. Their articles were hugely impressive.
