The capitalist that transformed a conservative United Kingdom into an egalitarian paradise.

When Harry Selfridge founded Selfridge’s in 1908, it brought with it one of the largest and most profound shifts in British culture seen since the inception of our nation. Not only did it change consumer culture, not only did it innovate in areas where previously people were restricted in shopping habits, but it brought with it a groundbreaking wave of liberalisation, which helped lead to the emancipation of women and the breakdown of class barriers.

The department store Selfridge’s was one of the first ever spaces to contain separate male and female toilets in the UK. We take this fact for granted today, but prior to the 20th Century, women weren’t commonly seen outside of the house. The barriers to their emancipation were extreme. Imagine a society in which there were no places you could go to the bathroom; where the limiting factor for travel was the distance to your own home. Selfridge’s, by utilising gendered toilets for the first time, by locating near public transport links, became a place in which women felt safe to frequent alone, or with other women. It was a place they could be individually empowered. And this was revolutionary to the emancipation of women.

Selfridge himself was also a supporter of the Suffragettes, and the wider campaign in favour of women’s rights in the UK. Whether this was a gesture utilised to enhance profits, or whether there was a genuine streak of early American freedom and liberalism behind this decision is moot, the support of the Suffragettes meant that when militants feminism came to the streets of the UK, one of the few shops which weren’t targeted and vandalised was Selfridge’s. A smart business decision, but also a noble cause to support.

Selfridge was also unique in the way he advertised his new department store, spending millions on mass advertisement prior even finishing the construction of his store. In his advertisement he emphasized a simple fact; his store was open to everyone, no matter which creed or class. Selfridge’s was one of the first places in the UK where the doors were open to all regardless of class, and the aristocracy, middle classes and working classes all shopped and perused along side one another. This egalitarianism was also helped by the removal of what previously was common in stores.

Previously in shops, there would be staff members employed to ensure that customers were served as speedily and efficiently as possible. The emphasis, from the business point of view, was that the most time workers spent with actual buying customers, the more profit that would be made, and ultimately anyone seen to be loitering or spending unnecessary time would be moved on by members of staff on the shop floor. Selfridge removed these staff. He allowed people to spend time in his store, taking in every element of every display stall. For those with little money, this opened the door to a vast space, filled with artwork, flowers and grand architecture.

Selfridge’s prided itself on technological innovation, being one of the first stores to demonstrate the television in action, it sold revolutionary wireless radios, and even, as a publicity stunt, was host to the plane which first flew across the English channel. People from working class backgrounds could come into Selfridge’s as if it were a museum, a showcase of what was happening in the world, and a taste of what could be achieved. Harry Selfridge was a self made man, he battled adversity and hardship to climb to where he perched. He grew up in rural Wisconsin, to a single mother, worked up the ranks in Chicago before noticing a break in the market for American style department stores in the UK. This drive, the fact he was a self made man, underpinned his classless emphasis within his store. He wanted people to be inspired by what was within, so that they too could reach for the stars and become the pinnacle of what they could be. Many members of the public saw technology only previously seen by the upper middle classes and aristocracy inside his store. Selfridge installed plentiful lift shafts, at a time when the thought of moving straight up was preposterous. Inspiring thousands. In the first week of opening, Selfridge’s bought in 1 million customers, when the population of London itself was only 4 million.

The staff members in previous stores were treated very similar to the likes of servants in aristocratic homes. Many of whom would live on site in accommodation above the stores, in rather squalor conditions, with minimal pay. Selfridge did not follow this ethic. He wanted his staff to enjoy working, and to pass that enjoyment on to his customers, emphasising in customer service, over efficiency; a model that turned out to be more profitable. He paid his staff a higher amount so they could afford to live outside of work and commute themselves, liberalising the workers, setting an example to other stores and changing the way that people, who otherwise would have had very little rights, lived.

Other department stores saw the success that Selfridge’s had and emulated it. They precipitated this environment which encouraged female emancipation and liberalisation, and broke down class barriers. As Harry Selfridge himself said, “the customer is always right”, and that applies regardless of class or gender. His take on capitalism, his fight to succeed and profit above other stores lead to a greater delicacy in customer service, a greater emphasis on care, and better treatment for workers. Capitalism is not a race to the bottom, because for companies to succeed they need to please customers, and the greatest weapon for change that the masses have is the power of their purse. We live in a world today of immense wealth and technology that otherwise would have been out of reach to the vast majority at the bottom of the ladder. Looking at where we were as society in the past, and how far we have come in the present, should lead to a great optimism about where we will go, and the state that society will be in in the future. Capitalism and liberalism go hand in hand, better living condition, higher pay, and opportunity and freedom for all individuals within society precipitated from this mix. Every customer is capable of creating profit, regardless of individual attributes, and thus will be treated right, and with the greatest level of care.


Unnecessary vitriol and parochial trivia; actors in UK politics can do much better.

“The problems in the Labour party are exaggerated”. This line is commonly espoused by members of the party. To which others then reject this notion by saying individuals who act like this are acting only to cover up anti-semitism. In reality both sides, the Labour party and their current detractors, are in the wrong. It is obviously wrong for members within the Labour party to state that people, due to their Jewish faith, are somehow more insidious than other members of society, or the conflation that someone who is a follower of Judaism is someone more responsible than the average non-jewish Brit of imposing Israel’s foreign and domestic policy.

But alternately other side is wrong for using the Jewish faith as some football in which to attack the Labour party. Tackling anti-semitism in society is not achieved by calling Jeremy Corbyn an anti-semite eleven hundred times in each newspaper. It achieves nothing.

Debating Israel’s domestic and foreign policy is not anti-semitic, suggesting that “the Jews” are to blame for Israel’s actions is, and sadly this is all too commonly what occurs.

Similarly, there seems to be a theme on the other side of the equation, where people are using these problems in Labour to lambast the entire crowd unfairly. There are members in Labour, members of parliament, people across the entire organisation who are sincere in their fight against anti-semitism. Collective groupthink is wrong, and denigrating all of a group for the actions of a few is always wrong, yet ever present in politics.

The problem that society faces is this; Labour is in a state of “teflon politics”. It has been seen before. UKIP, no matter what happened, kept snowballing in support because when the establishment unfairly jumps on a party which represents a proportion of the public’s views, the public feel that they themselves are being attacked. There is a general distrust of establishment politics and it is in these periods where the general public latch onto the underdogs.

Everything and anything can be rejected. There is nuance in politics and what is truthful, what is correct, is somewhat malleable. Yes, it is true that Conservative cuts to police may have been too severe and thus the ability for the capital to be policed has been adversely affected. But equally, whilst other regions are similarly seeing a reduction in crime, the City is experiencing a rise in crime that has its genesis in the election of Sadiq Khan as London mayor; the mayor being the person who sets London’s policing budget. So who, looking at all the data, is at fault? We don’t know. It’s impossible to place the blame on individuals and because of this heated debates over semantics and lack of evidence, without any nuance, seem to occur.

Fact based policy making can only be promoted if the public believe the facts, and in this era of fake news, figure manipulation, individual bias, we see distrust in facts and figures. The ONS, OBR, or any other body of statistics are just shilling for the government, releasing fake stats. Or alternatively, the government is just changing the goal posts so the figures suit their agenda… Is this true? Perhaps in some instances. Is this false? If there is a news story and someone dislikes the government, they are likely to believe anything it says that denigrates them. We are a closed minded society.

People and politicians don’t enter politics because they have some insidious world view. Politicians, like us ordinary folk, are just people. Members of the public with families and children. They put their private lives on hold in order to serve, they face abuse and attacks, vitriol and threats. They are not these robotic figures who act to undermine society. People on both sides of the political arena do what they do because they believe what they are doing will make the lives of the people of Britain better off. This will be scoffed at, and people think that MPs are sitting in Westminster quaffing champagne at the expense of the tax payer, but in reality many of them do not get the time to do anything outside their work. They spend Monday to Thursday in their Westminster box offices working on case work, attending committee meetings, zig zagging between Whitehall, Westminster, their respective departmental offices. Then often trek hundreds of miles to all over each edge of this country to work in their offices, hold surgeries with their constituents, deal with yet more casework from people who do not understand the job of an MP. The state of the roads in an area isn’t the job of an MP. MPs do not want to receive newspaper clippings from the Express about immigrants, Prince Harry’s wife’s grey hair or any other parochial or trivial matter.

At the end of the day, there’s often a lot more that goes on in the lives of politicians that people don’t really even realise. They are dehumanised, denigrated and disgraced for only doing what they believe to be the right thing, on the ticket for which they were voted in by the people they aim to represent. People are not infallible and by no means are politicians, and the power that is wielded in the halls of Westminster is a responsibility too great for most people.

Nuance, respect, and responsibility are three of the things most lacking in politics at this moment. An increase in these properties will infinitely de-toxify UK politics and may actually lead to some progress being made. Arguments are not won with insults and attacks, but by measured responses that show understanding and agreement.

Harry Potter and the prisoner of biological variations.

If you are one of the exclusive few that hasn’t watched or read the story of Harry Potter, this article may be harder to follow. However, the brief explanation below should explain the individual elements which are necessary to understand this piece, and should make things clearer.

Within the Harry Potter world, there is the school Hogwarts. Famed for its academic credibility in the teaching of witchcraft and wizardry. Within this school, the students are divided into four “Houses”, each with their own set of distinct differences and characteristics. These houses are Gryffindor, Hufflepuff, Ravenclaw and Slytherin; each named after famous wizards and witches from the Harry Potter universe. The House Gryffindor was famed for bravery, courage, and strength. Hufflepuff for hard work, perseverance and loyalty. Ravenclaw on intelligence, mental ability, and wisdom. Slytherin for cunning, for power, and nobility.

Students, when first attending the school, are sorted into these different houses by a magical talking hat; the Sorting Hat. And in these Houses they remain for the duration of their lives. Each of these Houses has different attributes, and each attribute has different benefits and drawbacks. Certain Houses are famed for certain characteristics and prospects are widely determined based on the Houses students are in.

In a rather informal, but conclusive, manner, a twitter poll was run asking four distinct questions. The first two being very much so linked. When the twitter sphere was asked “Out of the Harry Potter Houses, a member of which house do you think would be the most successful in the workplace?”, the highest voted House, with a total of 48% of the vote was Ravenclaw, followed by Slytherin on 27%. In last place came Hufflepuff, on 11% of the vote. Thus, people deem the House of Hufflepuff to be the least likely to accrue success.

Furthermore, when asked the question “A member of which house would be the least successful?”, a similar story unfolded. A grand total of zero votes, 0%, of all respondents voted that Ravenclaw would be the least successful. Echoing the results from prior poll. 53% of people voted that Hufflepuff would be the least successful, with Gryffindor on 21% and Slytherin on 26%.

From the books, people therefore thought that the House of Hufflepuff would be less likely to achieve well in the real world. Any logical or rational person can see why though. The people in the House of Hufflepuff possess different traits; perhaps less desirable traits. Perseverance and loyalty, although admirable and beneficial, does not a person who excels make. When compared to traits such as cunning, or bravery, or intelligence, the ability to continue plodding along at a certain task with perseverance seems logical that these characteristics are less desirable in environments that specifically require high levels of competency. Additionally, traits such as loyalty and friendliness correlate to a psychological trait known as agreeableness. People with high levels of agreeableness are shown in the workplace to be less successful, and to earn less than their counterparts. Assuming these assumptions are accurate, and that traits that are possessed by the members of the House Hufflepuff, it would be logical to realise that the theoretical success of House members is determined by specific psychology attributes and traits.

The black and white argument, which would surely be illogical, is to assume that someone who is part of Hufflepuff, is less successful because they are in Hufflepuff. That their success is predicated not by their individual and independent attributes, but by some collective notion that specific House membership determines the course for the individual. This view is dangerous. It assumes that because someone is a part of some group, they are therefore necessarily less capable, rather than allowing all individuals to be treated based on their own merits and own abilities.

The general theme so far of this piece may seem absurd. For what reason does Harry Potter and their systems of Houses fit at all into the real world? In general, this analogy can be used to describe the problems of gender, of the gender pay gap, and of disparities of genders in certain career pathways. Empirically, factually, and scientifically, men and women possess different psychology attributes. We have labelled them is society as “masculine” or “feminine” based on which gender is more or less likely to have these features, although this notion should be rejected. It is equally possible, although less likely, for a woman to possess the same psychological traits as men. Whether it is openness and lateral thinking, industriousness, agreeableness, neuroticism or some other mental trait. Each psychological characteristic exists not in black and white, but on a scale, you can be more or less neurotic than others, for example, and in terms of research, different levels of different personality characteristics correlates to success in the workplace.

The danger we have as society is assuming that because someone is a women they are less capable than a man. Whilst women on the whole tend to possess traits that deem them less attractive in areas of high stress and competency, this does not mean for one second that a women may not be capable of the job at hand. Women in high competency or high stress jobs will often have lower levels of agreeableness, higher levels of industriousness, than fellow counterparts. But similarly, men in high competency positions and high stress positions will equally have higher levels of the traits which empirically show higher aptitudes. The conflation that characteristics are purely male vs. female, or masculine vs. feminine is wrong. It is equally plausible for both men and women to have the same traits, and thus the levels of success in these individuals will roughly correlate. Men and women who have equal traits will be in equal positions and likely have equal pay (within a margin). In a pluralistic society, in a free, equal society, people who are equal will achieve equal degrees of success.

If we want to ensure that women are more successful, traits such as industriousness must be encouraged, and agreeableness discouraged. However the argument comes down to how much these traits are determined by genetics. Much like with IQ, training and environmental factors will likely be able to increase or decrease IQ by say up to 10 or 20 points either side. However someone who genetically is predisposed to an IQ of 100 will never reach parity with someone who is predisposed to an IQ of 140, and just as education, training, and psychotherapy can allow women to reach their full potential, this may never, due to biological reasons, allow them to exceed that of “males”, as an aggregate of the collective group.

The blame for this, by many, has been placed on the nature of the capitalistic society. This cut throat, competitive, dog-eat-dog system. But to argue “what if the system was different?” or “what if this was not the case?” is illogical in any real scope of questioning. It is not about what the world could be in an abject utopia, but about where the world is, what we want it to be, and how we enable it to get there. Trying to use the powers of the state to mandate equality of outcome, when it is physically impossible for that to ever be the case, only acts to the detriment of society. The liberal movement, for it to be truly accepting and competent, needs to look at science, it needs to look at empirical data and results, and use this information to mold the world into the shape it can be within the scope of reality.

Just as saying that someone is worse off because they were put into the House of Hufflepuff is sorely illogical, saying that someone is less capable is predicated from the fact they are a woman is false. They are less capable due to the psychological traits they are more likely to possess, and these are universally variable across the species.

In fact, different physical traits are correlated to differing mental traits. For example, someone who is tall, is more likely to have a higher IQ. This is due to the way that our genome is coded. Our genome exists of around ten million of what are called single nucleotide polymorphisms, or SNPs for short. Thousands of these SNPs correlate to different physical traits, and there is assumed to be an overlap between the formation of these SNPs. The Manhattan Plot is a way of measuring hundreds of thousands of SNPs, and with the data we have today there is a clear correlation between the possession of different SNP groupings and different traits. Therefore it is entirely possible to assume that the genome of different people will indicate success in the work place, and thus the differences between the genetic structure of men and women will determine to what degree success is reached.

To conclude, a piece of food for thought: it has been shown that the number of differences between the sexes, including psychological differences and differences in terms of jobs and wages, are far larger in countries which are more gender egalitarian. There is no sociological factor that is forcing men and women to be different. In nations where people are more free to follow which paths they choose, men and women are more likely to tend towards different pathways. The actions by the modern feminist or egalitarian movements actually seek to reduce the freedoms of women by forcing them to go into positions or careers they otherwise would not seek to choose. This is a disgrace, this is illiberal, and it will only seek to hurt individual members of society.

A critique and approach to fundamental political discourse.

The fundamental flaw in the political sciences is the necessity for those within to try to ascribe a level of objective truth to a field where there lacks an objective realism. Political statements are but statements of objectives, and a display that the one who issues them understands, or, in fact, does not, the models for which the political sphere functions within the realm of our observability. In stating that implementing policy A would be “beneficial” one acknowledges therefore that implementing policy A would deter, to an extent, problem B. But to what end does this “beneficial” predicate hold true? To whom does this subjective level indicate a preferential movement? Political language like this is meaningless, in that it offers no universally accepted description to those who hear it. Each individual possesses an idea of which ideals they wish to see reached; these aims and objectives differ substantially between individuals, yet political language, because of the nature of electability, provides a necessity to appeal to, at least, the majority of individual’s own sense of “progress”. Political statements can posit that a policy reaches an aim, without stating what that aim is, and the subjective degree to which the individual interprets such statements within their own frame of subjective reality, thus attributes its supposed beneficial nature to their own political model construct. To further elucidate one’s political sentiments one must remove the intended vagueness that allows the perquisite of the audience to subjectively interpret each political objective. And thus it must be in the nature of political analysis to describe the fluctuations between intended goals of political statements and the meaningless platitudes they offer to the ears of the listener.

When a political statement, “A is beneficial”, is made what the argument entails is that to do A, furthers us towards aim C, and that aim C is obstructed by problem B. Therefore by implementing A, problem B disappears and thus cannot obstruct aim C. But by saying “A is beneficial” to an unprepared and bewildered listener one omits even what B, or C, is. However the sale of such original statement omits the fact that the aims of individuals will be different. Why “A is beneficial” to the audience posits deeper analysis, prior to its publication. It also calls into question two further fundamental areas. To the audience, A cannot be said to be beneficial if, firstly, the audience doesn’t consider B to be a problem, and secondly, the audience fails to consider C to be the aim. This is far prior to any insight into whether solution A would even begin to act as a catalyst to ensure that the so called problem B is lessened. So, to sum up, for the statement “A is beneficial” to be true, the audience all must accept the aim C, they must consider B to be a problem, and objective A must act as a catalyst to remove the problem stated. Considering the areas of problems that can be raised in such political discourse, using such a statement to a broad spectrum of listeners and followers is likely to achieve little. Yet, the lack of meaningful discourse analysis and subsequent language reflection allows a psychological variation between individuals based on them fitting an inconsistent objective into a subjective mental framework, thus allowing the statement to appeal to their own subjective model despite no such occurrence happening. When a political figure tells you that a policy is beneficial, one must question to whom?
“What aims do I possess?”
“Does this policy establish a viable route to my higher aims being accomplished?”
“Does the problem being countered exist in any meaningful way? ” (If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it).

Only after these three questions have been answered can you independently verify the statement “A is beneficial”, however, it is still meaningless because your neighbour will almost certainly object on one level or another. The onus on doing so, for analysing these statements, should be on us; those capable of comprehending the complexities and nature of political discourse. Those who understand the necessary nature of empirical argumentation, of philosophical theory, of progress, because those who seek election can not, will not, change how they act, for it is in their interest to act in that way; the bulk of the public have far more important aspects of life to worry about than analysing the ins and outs of political statements. It is us, the politicos, the writers, the journalists, the academics, the students and the altruists, who must contribute to this dialectic in a way which creates a palatable and digestible account of reality and political statements, and in doing so, provide a empirical backbone to an environment that lacks any verisimilitude.

Don’t be stupid; Oxbridge isn’t racist.

Oxford and Cambridge are two of the highest rated academic institutions on the planet, and evidently the practices within these bodies themselves are ensuring that such high standards are maintained. Levels of pupils from minority backgrounds declining in entry from the colleges is not an indictment of the universities, but an indictment of the access to opportunities available to pupils from worse off backgrounds in general. Entry to these universities depends on a varying number of factors, most importantly the combination of adequate grades and the commitment of application to these universities in the first place. In 2013, the number of applications to Oxford from the South East and London totalled 5119, with 1271 of those applicants successfully being accepted; a total application to acceptance rate of 23.0%. On the contrary, the number of students applying to Oxford from the North West was 1026, with only 192 students being granted acceptance. An acceptance rate of 18.7%.

The South East and Greater London’s rate of applicants as a percentage of the population was 0.03%, in the North West, the percentage of pupil applications as a percentage of the population was 0.015%. You were twice as likely to make an application to Oxford if you lived in the South East or Greater London compared to living in the North West. If you were an Oxford applicant from the North East you were among 0.009% of the population to apply there, three times less likely to make an application than from the South East and London.

But why this is, is the general conundrum, and can comprise of many varying factors. For a start, geographical proximity to such universities could play a part. “The figures show that Surrey alone sent almost as many of its residents to study at Cambridge and Oxford last year as Wales and the north-east of England combined”. The percentage of applications to Oxbridge from Surrey in relation to the county’s population is 0.078%, compared to 0.020% from the North East and Wales. It is not shocking to see that those who live close to an educational institution favour such institutions in their applications, and the ability to travel for students is definitely a limiting factor in regard to opportunity, and thus it is the responsibility of the government to ensure that people from across the nation have access to adequate public transport, and thus greater opportunities.

A second reason why there is this disparity could be attributed to general regional differences in educational quality. 903,000 pupils in 2013 in the South East attended a school ranked by Ofsted as good or outstanding, marking 77% of the population. In terms of the proportion of students, of secondary schools in the South East, 21% of students are in schools listed as inadequate or requiring improvement. In comparison, in the North East, Yorkshire, and Humber, of secondary schools, 33% of pupils are in schools ranked inadequate or requiring improvement. A difference of 12%. However, this is a reasonably historic set of data, over recent years the academic prowess of the North East has been on the change. “Nearly a quarter – 23.3% – of grades in the region were As or A*s, up 1.2% compared to last year, the second-highest rise in the country.” With a rise in grades A*-B increasing 3.9% from 2012-2017. The region’s A-level pass rate stood at the joint-highest in the country alongside the North West, yet despite this, the number of students in the region applying to universities remains the lowest in the country. So despite increasing academic performance, and a general upward trend in levels of attainment in A Levels, fewer pupils are applying to university than from other regions.

This leads to a third possible factor, because despite high pass rates in regions such as the North West and North East, application rates to universities remain the lowest in the country. Socio-economic standing and poverty rates in these regions are far higher than those in areas compared to other regions in the UK. As of October 2017, the unemployment rate in the North East is the highest in the country, currently residing at 5.8%, in comparison to 3.3% in the South East. Rates of poverty for 2013/14 in the North East, defined as the proportion of people living in households with an income below 60% of the contemporary median household, is at 22%, compared to 18% in the South East, which doesn’t necessarily indicate a significant margin, however looking back 1998/9, rates of poverty in the North East stood at 29%, compared to 19% in the South East. So whilst poverty in the South East has decreased by 1% over the timespan recorded, the rates of poverty in the North East has decreased by 32%, perhaps leading to an endemic reluctance to apply for a place at a university due to such historical socio-economic disparities. In recent years half of students starting university have become first in their family to do so, however, this also matches a trend in which pupils are applying less on a national level to university. With government targets seeking to see 50% of all people attend a university, the value of a degree is shrinking, and with the government policy in relation to loans being manipulated by universities themselves, many from poorer backgrounds with lower grades are seeing themselves indebted to a university on a course which will not provide them with the necessary income or see their full potential as pupils realised. 60% of new graduates are in non-graduate jobs, with levels from poorer students being higher than this. A Sutton Trust poll from this year showed that 14% of the 2,600 students they questioned stated that they were unlikely to attend university, up from 8% in 2012. With a university degree giving a decreasing competitive edge within the job market, and the burden of student loans and maintenance held by students, it is not so hard to believe that fewer people will be interested in attending university, over gaining meaningful experience in employment.

Looking at the opening point in regards to low levels of BME students at top universities correlates with socioeconomic trends as well. Around two-fifths of people from ethnic minorities live in low-income households, twice the rate for white people. When there is a greater need to work and survive, there is less effort often put into academia. A lack of opportunity and alternative routes into university for those who are intelligent and skilled, but do not necessarily have the grades to get into a decent university is slowly condemning those from more impoverished backgrounds to a life where their full potential is not being fulfilled. This is not only a disgrace to such individuals, but also an economic burden on the UK, as those with worthwhile degrees from relevant institutions will over their lives contribute more to the treasury, lift thousands out of poverty, and provide a higher quality of life for those who are capable of doing far more but of whom are forced due to poverty to remain to sustain themselves and their families.

Going back to the point on geography, and the final revealing picture comes into view as to why there are such stark regional differences. In the North West and North East combined, according to The Complete University Guide, a total of 9 universities have been ranked, since they began recording data, as being within the top ten of their subject league tables. This is a total of just over 1 top ten university for every 1000 sq. miles. In the South East and London, there are 28 universities which have appeared in the top ten of the subject league table, coming to a total of 3.5 top ten universities for every 1000 sq. miles. People residing in areas with better access to local universities are more likely to go to university. People who have to travel a smaller distance to attend a university, are more likely to go to university. Worse access to public transport, differing trends in socioeconomic standing among regions, and depreciating values of degrees within the UK are the major factors causing rates of university applications from certain subsections in society to fall. Oxbridge universities aren’t necessarily racist or classist, the figures do not show that these colleges aren’t willing to take people on because of where they come from or the colour of their skin, but the trend we can see shows that society is failing those who come from disadvantaged backgrounds, and a lack of fluidity between the classes, and equal opportunity for all causes a staunch divide where bright children from poor backgrounds do not achieve the pinnacle of what they should be able to, and the country is worse off for it.

Is Boris the only decent option for leader?

To preface this piece, it is necessary to explain that the take on which this article is being written differs greatly from the usual political consensus. To the extent that one could say it perhaps avoids consistent inaccuracies among political pundits and pollsters. To emphasise, it takes the opinion that British politics, and indeed global politics have begun to transition towards an Ideological Schism, of which it is impossible for the Conservative Party to triumph in its current form. The Conservative Party has recently been seen as devoid of a strong moral and ideological backbone, something which in many regards provides a great benefit to a party trying to be pragmatic, not only in trying to gain votes, but additionally in trying to better the country. But with the advent and sudden demise of the likes of Blair, Miliband and Cameron, this cycle of pragmatic politics is coming to an end, and those such as Corbyn and, as this piece may predict, May’s successor signal in the genesis of this new Ideological Age.

The state of play is as such; over the last decade and a half, the media industry has undergone a sudden and dramatic shift. Sixty-seven percent of American citizens report to now getting at least some of their news from social media. Here in the UK, of eighteen to twenty-four-year-olds twenty-eight percent have stated that social media is their main source of news, beating the traditional methods such as television and print media. Television only being the main source of news for twenty-four percent of young Britons. This shift has profound consequences as to how politics in the UK will progress, and the insurgence of populism across the globe at present could undeniably be linked to the advent of social media, electronic news, and a new age in media production. We are beginning to see the dawn of an Ideological Schism, fuelled by fake news. Where separate subsections of society are grouping together through natural ideological segregation on social media, where the only views shared are those which they agree with, and anyone proposing the contrary is removed from the loop.

In the UK the main separation on social media tends to trend down the lines of the following: The “right” have nationalistic tendencies, whipping up fear over migration, inflating fears of Islamic terror, and jumping to wild and unnecessary conclusions over simple traffic accidents. The “right” often espouse left-wing economic policies, supporting nationalisation of industry, supporting trade tariffs, supporting regulation to conserve nationalistic industries. Any moderate or pragmatic Conservative ought to be terrified at the idea that this subsection of politics is growing, but it is there, and it is massive. Vanity Fair has described Breitbart London as a “political powerhouse for Brexit”. Breitbart’s aim, as it attempts to expand across Europe, is to “help elect right-wing politicians… where anti-immigrant sentiment has been on the rise”. The Daily Mail is still by far the UK’s most-read news forum, with an audience of 29 million a month.

The left represents a different side of the same coin. Jeremy Corbyn is a left wing Donald Trump, and supporters of both Trump and Corbyn would despise anyone who points out such, but that is exactly a symptom of why it is the case. Corbyn and Trump have become these messianic figures to their supporters, and it becomes increasingly difficult for those of us outside their spheres of influence to determine why. However, that very statement shows exactly why. Those of us outside the spheres of influence rarely get bombarded by the constant stream of “fake news” and biased propaganda, if we have an opinion on a public forum which differs from that of the supporters we face hostility and rejection. It is this group mentality and segregated networking that forces even moderate supporters to jump on the bandwagon. The left is rife with a hatred of the right, they often cite sources such as Guardian opinion pieces and media outlets like The Canary. Just as the right indulges in idealistic propaganda aimed to create hostility and division towards a group such as migrants, Muslims etc, so does the left. In the book “The Populist Explosion” author John Judis writes at how left populism tends to be dyadic, and right triadic. This means that there are generally two constituent parts to these new populist groupings on the left, and three on the right. The left supposedly creates an air of disillusionment between the “people” and the “elite”, be it the bankers, the ruling classes, the stock brokers and Wall Street Traders. Quite abhorrently, many on the left still seem to be holding on to this long-time extreme left tradition that the Jews are somehow inexorably involved with these elite classes, and thus have a tendency of antisemitism. The right on the other hand, whilst often still doing that which is outlined above, have a habit of including a third group of people in their populism. It will oft be a fear of Islam, a fear of migrant workers, or a fear of homosexuals and so on.

The fear this schism may elucidate in many ways is that Corbyn’s anti-establishment, radical, quasi-nationalistic Labour party is far better suited to gaining votes from both sides of this gap than the moderate and pragmatic Conservative party. This was ascertained during the 2017 General Election when those in charge of heading the campaign from within the Conservative Party thought that pro-Brexit, nationalistic and anti-immigration tendencies would assure voters to support us. When in reality, this blasé, apathetic approach towards voters led to disillusionment as to whether the Conservatives were at all empathetic towards their real concerns. Showing little radicalism, more of the same and continuing with a stance that, although reasonably successful, has been incredibly unpopular over the course of the Tory’s tenure, and ended up pushing many of the undecided into the Corbyn camp. The Conservative faithful showed out in their millions to support a party, not out of enthusiasm, but out of fear of the alternative.

So going onto the main topic, as to who will best succeed Theresa May as leader of the Conservative Party, is a difficult subject. Traditionally the Conservative Party, when in government, elects the person who is considered to be the safe pair of hands; the front-runner. The likes of John Major, of Theresa May. These people were commonly seen and predicted to be the natural successors. When out of government the Conservatives tend to elect people more outside the box, a young David Cameron, with little ministerial experience becoming the leader of the Party in 2005, prior to that we had one of the most influential and successful politicians of all time, Margaret Thatcher. She was not seen to be the natural successor to Heath, but she promised something new, something radical. And where does this leave us? This is an extremely tumultuous time, we are in government, but only just, we have just elected a “safe pair of hands” to succeed a previous novel and ambitious leader. If May remains Prime Minister up until the next General Election, the Conservative Party will likely end up in opposition. But if we can do the unthinkable, and reinvent ourselves whilst in government, we could go on to win the next election easily.

What is needed politically for the Conservative Party is an innovative and appealing thinker, one who can unite different sides of the ideological pond beneath one banner, someone who is seen as likable, and as a personality in and of themselves. We need our own Bernie Sanders, or Ronald Reagan, or Donald Trump. Someone with personality, with impact, with “meme” quality. This is the first requirement; electing a “nobody” will not help the Conservative Party. The likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg or James Cleverly, as brilliant they are as political operators, are not yet in the league necessary, and would be without the time that Corbyn has had to manifest himself into the cult figure he is.

The second main requirement is as such, despite the bravado, despite the bombastic personality necessary, at heart the person elected must be reasonable. They will have to be pragmatic, sensible and moderate, relatively liberal, without an alienating past conservative agenda. Even if this more liberal agenda has to be masked for the duration of the election campaign. The people we are looking at which fit into both of these areas seem few and far between, but with some effort there seems to be a main trio of individuals which fit under such label. Ruth Davidson, Michael Gove and Boris Johnson. Ruth Davidson fits here obviously. Her fame comes from her outstanding personal charisma, her ability to lead and succeed where the Conservative Party has not before for decades, from the fact that she does not fit in with that label which is put upon any typical Conservative. Michael Gove, nationally famous for his past position within the Brexit campaign and in government, known for being a formidable politician and being able to tackle the hard tasks no other person would consider touching with a barge pole, his liberalism runs both economically and socially, strongly supporting the rights for marriage between all people consistently. Boris Johnson is quite clearly nationally famous, he considers himself to be a one-nation conservative. Back as Mayor of London in 2010, Boris spoke to Benedict Brogan of the Telegraph about being a one-nation Tory and of ‘human’ ways to tackle the deficit, consistently echoing socially liberal sentiments. His general famousness and his ability to create headlines and amass groups of fans no matter which corner of this nation he travels to is unprecedented within the Conservative Party, and only goes to show the tenacity with which he would make a popular leader of the Conservatives.

Finally the last requirement is parliamentary possibility and general competence. Ruth Davidson, as brilliant as she is, firstly is not a Member of Parliament, and secondly, may not be suited for UK politics as she is within Scottish politics. The level of respect she garners in Scotland does not necessarily equate to a potential manifestation across the UK were she able and willing to stand for leader. Michael Gove and Boris Johnson, therefore, become the final two contestants, and when considering all three above requirements, the person best capable of being a successful leader of the Conservative party would be Johnson.

But there are more reasons why Johnson may be a good choice for leader outside of these three categories. His appeal to wider spheres, winning the London Mayoral elections twice in a row, the fact that he came out to support the Leave campaign eliminates queries as to whether the leader of this party actually supports the people. We cannot win this election with a “safe pair of hands” we recently have not won elections when that has been the case, and being in government for what will be over a decade by the next election, apathy towards the Conservative party will be at an all-time high. The only real option we have is to re-invent ourselves, with a radical, lively leader. And you cannot deny that Boris is not just that.

On a final note, in these ideologically separated times, any candidate from the Conservative party will in some capacity be derided and attacked by the left, so let us at least choose someone who appeals to the right of our party. Rumours of the likes of Amber Rudd or Philip Hammond inching towards a leadership bid are insane. They will not win support of the membership of the party, the most recent survey in Conservative Home suggested that Amber Rudd would have support of just over 7% of the party membership, Philip Hammond was on 3.6%, David Davis, Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg combined achieved a total of 50% of the total votes, with the rest being taken by the likes of Priti Patel, Leadsom, and Gove. Boris Johnson alone came first with 21.46% of the vote. I think this shows that it is quite clear how the party is leaning, and it is quite clear the kind of candidates that could win. Out of the major front-runners Boris is by far the most liberal choice, the candidate with the greatest experience of responsibility, and the greatest national fame among voters. Moderate and more left-leaning voices within the Conservative Party, when looking at who could be next leader, should consider the following; out of those which have the support of the membership, which candidate is by far the most likely to be moderate, liberal and progressive, whilst at the same time being capable of winning elections. Is it Andrea Leadsom? Mogg? Patel? No, it is Boris.

Analyse the causes of antibiotic resistance within bacteria and assess the impact this could have on society.


1 – Introduction
1.1 – Section one: An outline of the Problem of Antimicrobial Resistance
1.2 – Section two: Solutions to the Problem of Antimicrobial Resistance

Section 2 – An outline of the Problem of Antimicrobial Resistance
2.1 – Mechanism
a. Relevant layout of the bacteria capable of causing anti-microbial resistance
b. Mutation of the cell
c. Biochemical/Efflux Pumps
d. Enzymes
2.2 – The Cause
a. The agricultural industry
b. Medical malpractice
c. Failure to regulate
2.3 – The Impact

Section 3 – An outline of the Solutions to Antimicrobial Resistance
3.1 – In Vitro Meat
3.2 – Government spending on research
3.3 – Government legislation and regulation
Section 4 – Conclusion
4.1 – The Impact
4.2 – The Cure


1 – Introduction

This project seeks to outline the problem of antimicrobial resistance. The first section of this document will include a discussion into the mechanics behind the development of resistance in bacteria, the operations within society which are leading to a rise in antimicrobial resistance and the impacts that near-total immunity to antibiotics in bacteria would have on everyday life and society as a whole. The second section of this document will explain the particular routes and avenues in which society can help solve the rising immunity to antibiotics that exists within certain strains of bacteria. This includes an assessment of new potential medical and agricultural practices, as well as government intervention in the marketplace and in the realms of scientific research. Antimicrobial resistance will herein be referred to interchangeably as antibiotic resistance in bacteria, AMR, or antimicrobial resistance. These terms for the purpose of this document will remain interchangeable, although there are nuances between the definitions on a scientific basis. Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is defined as “when microorganisms such as bacteria, viruses, fungi and parasites change in ways that render the medications used to cure the infections they cause ineffective.” (World Health Organisation 2017), as opposed to antibiotic resistance in bacteria which specifies which strain of microorganism is being affected by the problem of antibiotic resistance.
1.1 – Section one: An outline of the Problem of Antimicrobial Resistance
As stated above, the first section of this document will outline the mechanics of Antimicrobial resistance, this includes the different biological weapons in evolution’s arsenal. The first area which will be discussed is when there are mutations in the outer membrane of gram-negative bacteria which lead to an inability for antibiotics to enter the cell. Secondly, this document will explain how the development of biochemical pumps in bacteria can expel antibiotics, thus defending them against the antibiotics. Furthermore, the first section will also look into the mutation of active sites within bacteria and the addition of enzymes within the line of attack for antibiotics which hamper their effectiveness and lead to antimicrobial resistance.

After the mechanics of antimicrobial resistance have been explained, this document will seek to lay out that which we humans do that leads to antimicrobial resistance, including medical malpractices, farming faux-pas and the frivolous misuse and overuse of antibiotics in unregulated economies and developing nations. Leading on from this, the impacts to wider society, such as the inability to treat diseases which otherwise would we easily treatable, general medical practices such as blood transfusions and organ transplants which would no longer be viable, and the effect it would have on travel and other such wider problems.
1.2 – Section two: Solutions to the Problem of Antimicrobial Resistance
The second section will hopefully be less doom and gloom. Explaining the methods which society could undertake to lessen the effect or reverse the problems of antimicrobial resistance. Section 2, subsection 1 will look into the solutions within the medical sphere, such as more in-depth

Section 2 – An outline of the problems of antimicrobial resistance
Antimicrobial Resistance will be one of the defining issues of the next century. Since their discovery and use, antimicrobial resistance has been found against every strain of antibiotics we have in our arsenal (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2013). Over the last 20 years, different medical professionals and scientists have theorised the coming of the end of antibiotics in society, with “tuberculosis, typhoid fever, meningitis, pneumonia, and septicaemias” emerging as imminent global threats (Quintessence Int. 1998). The development of antibiotics has been on a general downwards trend since their introduction to medical use in the 1940s, with peak antibiotic development occurring around the late 1950s to the early 1960s.  (See fig 1.1)  Frivolous use and lack of in-depth scientific knowledge regarding antibiotics has likely seen most of the drug’s potential squandered.
Timing of Market Introduction and Emergence of Resistance for Selected Drugs. [fig 1.1] (Alliance for the Prudent Use of Antibiotics, n.d.)

As we entered the 21st century, the level of usable antibiotics has sharply declined. For example, the levels of usable antibiotics for the disease Gonorrhoea (Neisseria gonorrhoeae) currently sits at just one. During the late 1990s and early 2000s, “fluoroquinolone resistance in N. gonorrhoeae emerged in the United States”, by 2007, resistance to fluoroquinalone was so widespread that medical professionals stated that the antibiotic was no longer relevant in the treatment of Gonorrhoea. This left a strain of antibiotics called cephalosporins as the last remaining effective strain of antibiotics in the fights against Gonorrhoea. (Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report 2007, 2012). Within the cephalosporins antimicrobial class there were two strains effective against N. gonorrhoeae, cefixime and ceftriaxone. Fig 1.2 shows the minimum inhibitory concentrations for both these antibiotics, indicating an elevation in the necessary level of said antibiotics in treating Gonorrhoea infections. This elevation had suggested a waning in the effectiveness of the antibiotics against the strain, and come late 2012 the cefixime strain of antibiotics was entirely ineffective.
This extreme adaptation to antibiotics has not solely occurred in Gonorrhoea however, it is something that has affected a certain type of bacteria almost universally. Due to this, as a society, we may run out of useable antibiotics within the next few decades, and the problems that will bring to society will be immense.

Percentage of Gonorrhoea isolates with elevated cefixime MICs and ceftriaxone MICs

[Fig 1.2] (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2012) MICs = minimum inhibitory concentrations

diagnoses of diseases to determine which form of antibiotic is suitable for treating the symptoms, and also a condemnation of the current malpractices of Doctors prescribing general antibiotics for viral infections, of which these have no healing effects. Subsection 2 will look into the agricultural industry, highlighting how better farming practices would lessen the impact of anti-microbial resistance, and how the current development of In Vitro meat could remove the necessity of using antibiotics within the industry altogether. Finally, within this section, I will sum up the overall government regulations and potential schemes the government has and should put in place to combat the issue of antimicrobial resistance in bacteria.


  1. Relevant layout of the bacteria capable of causing anti-microbial resistance

[Figure 1.3] (Diagram showing the differing nature between gram positive and gram negative bacteria, 2013)Most antibiotics currently work by attacking the functions of the inner cells, inevitably to do so, they must be able to access the cells themselves. There are two major forms of bacteria, known as gram-positive, and gram negative. [See fig 1.3]
Gram-positive bacteria contain a peptidoglycan cell wall, which acts as a primary defence, past this there is a plasma membrane. This cell wall houses little defence against antibiotics, and because of this, the mechanism for antimicrobial resistance is rarely to do with the outer membrane. However with gram-negative bacteria, in addition to the peptidoglycan cell wall and the plasma membrane, there is also an outer membrane and the periplasm.

Diagram showing the differing nature between gram positive and gram negative bacteria.

  1. Mutation of the cell

    The outer membrane creates a barrier to antibiotics. There are two routes in which an antibiotic can permeate the cell wall. There is a pathway for hydrophobic antibiotics which negates the necessity for diffusion, and general diffusion pores that cross a cellular membrane for hydrophilic antibiotics (Delcour, 2008). Once within the outer membrane, bacteria commonly work by preventing the bacteria from building such a cell wall, this occurs when the antibiotic prevents the molecules which form the cell wall from binding together. An example of an antibiotic which utilises this technique is Beta-Lactam group.
    Alternately, the macrolide group of antibiotics work by attacking the ribosomes in the cells of bacteria. Ribosomes function by constructing the proteins, and proteins are what help keep the bacteria cell alive, therefore by attacking the ribosome, the antibiotic will cause the bacteria cell to die (, n.d.). Random mutations within bacteria can cause a modification in the structure of areas such as the ribosomes and the cell walls. With the macrolide strain of antibiotics, resistances comes either through methylation or mutation of the ribosome which prevents the macrolide from binding to it (Leclercq, 2002).

  2. Biochemical/Efflux Pumps

    Following on from methylation or mutation of the individual parts of the cells, another way in which bacteria gain a resistance is through a process called efflux. Efflux is the mechanism responsible for moving compounds, like antibiotics, out of the cell. (Sun, Deng and Yan, 2014) Efflux pumps are located in the cytoplasmic membrane of the cell and are considered to be active transport pumps. Active transport pumps require energy to function, rather than working by functions such as osmosis, of which would constitute passive transport. Although not necessarily purposeful, cells with efflux pumps also work at expelling antibiotics, and the problem with antibiotics arise due to the fact that the bacteria with efflux pumps are far more likely to survive than those which do not. These bacteria then multiply through the process of binary fission which is a form of asexual reproduction, due to this, other than random minor mutations, the offsprings are genetically identical to the parent cell. Additionally, whilst some efflux pumps are antibiotic specific, many actually operate on multiple drugs.

  3. Enzymes

    The final mechanism of antimicrobial resistance this project will cover is enzymatic modification. (Chow, J.W., Mobashery, S., Toth, M., Vakulenko, S.B., 2009) Enzymatic modification is when bacteria produce enzymes which are capable of modifying the respective antibiotic prior to it reaching its target. (De Pascale, G., Wright, G.D., 2010). This, in essence, means that they cannot perform their roles and are thus ineffective. Enzymes that perform such functions commonly exist within the periplasm (see fig 1.3), and as antimicrobial agents via general diffusion make their way across the enzyme and protein-rich body they are modified irreparably. Beta-lactamases elaborated by both gram-negative and gram-positive bacteria hydrolyse what is known as the amide bond of the beta-lactic nucleus destroying the antimicrobial abilities of the beta-lactic agent. (Trevor, Katzung and Kruidering-Hall, 2012)

    The Cause

    1.  The intensive farming industry is one of the largest causes of antimicrobial resistance that we’ve identified. (VMD, 2009) In essence, antibiotics are being used within intensive battery farming to ensure that animals are able to survive in squalid conditions, this is used to reduce the price of meat, and to also increase the amount produced. The average annual per capita cost to consumers in the US were there to be a ban on antibiotic drug use would be $4.84 to $9.72, assuming a U.S. population of 260 million, the total cost to consumers would amount to about $1.2 billion to $2.5 billion per year (National Academies Press (US); 1999). Adjusting for inflation, this sum in 2017 would be up to $3.7 billion.

      According to a report produced by an independent body chaired by the British economist Jim O’Neill, farming within the US uses up to 70% of antibiotics which are critical to medical use in human beings (O’Neill, 2015). These antibiotics are used in healthy animals to both speed up growth, and as a preventative measure to stop disease spreading due to the unhealthy conditions the animals are kept in, as a result, the levels of antimicrobial resistance is becoming ever more prevalent – especially within countries that have massively developed economically over the past 20 or so years (Tilman et al., 2002). Due to a lack of regulation, antibiotics which are kept as a last resort to save the lives of human in case of widespread antimicrobial resistance are being used within the farming industry, because of this, bacteria is ever more likely to adapt to become resistant (Hancock, 2017). A recent study from China (STAT, 2017) has shown that some strains of Escherichia coli have developed resistance to colistin, a form of polymyxin antibiotic. This antibiotic is a last resort antibiotic, one of the last effective forms in our antibiotics armoury.

    The waste runoff from intensive farming is another major concern when antibiotics are used in farming, there is very little that can be done to prevent these antibiotics escaping into the environment (Karthikeyan and Meyer, 2017). Studies of sludge at wastewater facilities have shown a growing level of resistance across the spectrum. In environments which contain a wide variety of antibiotics, antimicrobial resistance can occur at a far more rapid pace, leading to general concerns of widespread antimicrobial resistance in sewers and streams. These circumstances are the greatest cause of antimicrobial resistance and need to change if we are to tackle the issue. (Compassion in World Farming, 2017).

    1. Medical Malpractice is another major cause of antimicrobial resistance. Increasingly, antimicrobial resistance is being linked with the volume of antibiotic medication prescribed, as well as general laziness when it comes to taking antibiotics (for example, missing out on a dosage, or finishing the course of antibiotics before it has run its course). (Pechère, 2001). Additionally, the prescription of incorrect of ineffective antibiotics has been attributed with the increasing prevalence of antibiotic resistance. (Arnold and Straus, 2005). Another instance of increasing levels of malpractice among the medical community is in the prescribing of antibiotics when entirely irrelevant. The common cold, for instance, is a viral infection, and antibiotics are entirely ineffective at combating viruses, the prescription of antibiotics to combat a viral infection will have absolutely zero effect on the disease itself, and will only lead to the ever increasing rate of anti-microbial resistance being hastened. Doctors know that in most cases that the common cold is a virus, however, patients feel like they haven’t been treated well if they attend a doctors clinic and receive no medication, so in instances where approval ratings need to be reached, or the doctors want their patients to feel like something has been prescribed to help fix the illness, doctors will prescribe entirely useless medication. According to a study by the Centers for Disease Control (, 2017) up to half of the antibiotics used in humans are unnecessary and inappropriate.
    2. Another sociological cause of antimicrobial resistance is a lack of global government regulation. With underdeveloped and individualistic economies allowing the sale of last resort antibiotics without any real recourse or regulation. Many of these antibiotics are strictly regulated in developed countries due to their critical importance and ability to prevent deaths in the extreme cases. In addition to this, the manufacture of antibiotics itself is unregulated, and in China and India, the effect of this is severe. (The Guardian, 2017). The release of wastewater containing particles of antibiotics and general medical contaminants is vastly increasing the rates of antibiotic resistance and is causing the spread of antibiotic ingredients which cause bacteria to develop immunity to antibiotics, creating superbugs. A study of this wastewater found that not only were antibiotic resistant bacteria escaping the filtration system meant to prevent them escaping into the environment. “For every bacterium that entered one waste treatment plant, four or five antibiotic-resistant bacteria were released into the water system, tainting water, livestock and communities”. Recently, 13 pharmaceutical companies signed a declaration aiming for collective action on antimicrobial resistance. This committed them to a review of their manufacturing processes, with the aim of preventing contamination of the wider environment.

2.3 – The Impact

Without effective antibiotics, medical procedures will become ever more difficult. The World Health Organisation has stated that standard procedures such as “organ transplantation, cancer chemotherapy, diabetes management and major surgery (for example, caesarean sections or hip replacements) become very high-risk. In addition to common diseases such as pneumonia and chest infections could become extremely lethal once again. Such an eventuality would increase the rates of mortality, increase the average length of stay within a hospital, and dramatically and adversely impact the economic standing within nations.

The first major problem with antibiotic resistance is the obvious one. Antibiotics, as a medicine, will cease to work. This means that simple bacterial infections will no longer have a cure. Currently, over two million people are infected a year in the United States with bacteria that has gained antibiotic resistance. (, 2017). And out of these, up to, and perhaps even over, twenty-three thousand die. This is just the beginning, whilst our widespread ability to use antibiotics is mainly intact. However as the effect of AMR becomes ever so more widespread and prevalent, the number of deaths will inevitably rise.
[Figure 1.4] (Graph showing the potential and estimated rise of deaths from antimicrobial resistant infections, compared to the rate of deaths from other causes of death or death causing incidents)  (Business Insider UK, 2017)

The above graph shows the estimated increase in deaths from antimicrobial resistance, compared to the increase in deaths from cancer and other diseases/accidents. The scale of the threat from antimicrobial resistance can be truly recognised when the total level of deaths from Cancer will be below the number from antimicrobial resistance. At a total of 10 million deaths, this will almost represent a total of 1 in 3 deaths, and the worst affected will be infants and the elderly. In years gone by, prior to the age of antibiotics, simple scratches and throat infections could and would regularly lead to death. Of course, this was reversed with the invention of antibiotics, however, with their ineffectiveness being slowly actualised, the reverse will be a reality. People will die from a minor cut or scratch if we cannot deal with the problem.

The economic cost of these ten million deaths per year from antibiotic resistance is expected to exceed £66 Trillion. This figure is greater than the current world economy. (World Bank,2013). The impact will be most prevalent on the poor, increasing levels of poverty, increasing global tensions as countries without any major medical complications will become increasingly at risk of high mortality rates, conflict and extreme poverty.


Section 2 – An outline of the Solutions to Antimicrobial Resistance

3.1 – In vitro meat

The rise of lab-grown meat could herald major results in reducing the level of antimicrobial resistance seen today. Evidently as discussed above, intensive farming is a major cause of antibiotic resistance, and as a result, the ability to manufacture meat in a laboratory, with no need to use antibiotics, and no risk henceforth of the antibiotics leaking into the surrounding environments would lead a major way to lower the levels of AMR. Lab-grown meat is the process of culturing meat cells taken from animals, and causing them to multiply using a solution of nutrients and the like. The cost of lab-grown meat has dropped a staggering 30,000 times in less than 4 years and is currently produced at a cost of 3 to 4 times the amount of regular reared meat. By logical extension, one could assume that this price could drop further, and perhaps even undercut the cost of reared meat. (NextBigFuture, 2017). In addition, the general practice of lab-grown meat, options such as veganism and vegetarianism can go a long way to reducing the use of antibiotics in intensive farming.  With every drop in the consumption of meat, the need to use antibiotics decreases.

From an evaluative perspective, the advent of lab-grown meat as a readily available commodity, and the widespread increase and adoption of veganism and vegetarianism will go a long way to tackling one of the major contributing factors to antibiotic resistance in bacteria. This is one of the key pillars of the problem, and eliminating it as a factor would take a lot of strain off of the general system and allow a more lax approach by global governments. Government incentive and private investment into the technology behind lab-grown meat, to ensure its profitability, and a general PR campaign to tackle the stigma associated with its consumption would be the last few steps necessary to enact this solution. It is something estimated to happen within the next few decades, if not even this one (ABC News, 2017).


3.2 – Government spending on research

In the UK there is a 5-year antimicrobial resistance strategy to help prevent the rise of AMR. It has three strategic aims, and they are to:
– Improve the knowledge and understanding of antimicrobial resistance
– Conserve and steward the effectiveness of existing treatments
– Stimulate the development of new antibiotics, diagnostics and novel therapies
These are mostly aimed at research, with the UK government and other international bodies have been spending around £276bn on the development of new antibiotics and general research. (University of Birmingham, 2017)  (, 2013). However this spending doesn’t go far enough, there have been global calls for a new $2bn research fund, and increasing calls for the UK government to increase its own levels of funding following an exit from the European Union. (BBC News, 2017).

In reality, government spending on research of new antibiotics will only go part the way to solving the problem, perhaps if successful, it will give us a longer length of time in order to tackle the process of AMR. Improving the knowledge and understanding could play a crucial role in developing an effective strategy to combat the problems of AMR, including ensuring that doctors diagnose the correct illness, provide antibiotics only where necessary, and use the correct antibiotics when a patient is sick, rather than plastering them with ineffective or antibiotics of last resort. Additionally, government spending into the advertisement of this problem could go a long way to raise public awareness, with factors such as public misuse of antibiotics contributing significantly, and education within schools and colleges playing a big role in creating a generation of people who do not abuse antibiotics.

With these areas looked into, the slowing of antibiotic resistance, the creation of new antibiotics and the education of the general population as to the problems and to the easy solutions could help. However it is much like global warming, ensuring that many individuals contribute for the wider good is relatively difficult, so it almost always comes to government regulation in order to protect us from the problems we collectively create.

Research could also go a long way to tackle some of the causes of antimicrobial resistance. For example there are some drugs which have been shown to inhibit the functioning of enzymes or efflux pumps. (Chemistry LibreTexts, 2017)  (Askoura et al., 2011). Combining such drugs with antibiotics could far further their usefulness, ensuring that the processes of enzymatic modification or efflux were prevented. This is an area where further research must be done, as we may have the drugs available to us now, but we just don’t know it.

3.3 – Government Regulation

This last topic will cover three areas and provide a brief conclusion into the solutions available to us. The first topic will be governmental environmental regulation, the second will be within the medical industry, and the last looking at how global governments could cooperate to legislate against and regulate against rising antimicrobial resistance.

Within the UK, it would be beneficial for the government to tighten its environmental regulations in regards to the manufacture of antibiotics, the general use of them in medicine, and the use of them within livestock.
Firstly, as discussed prior in this report, it is common for doctors to overprescribe antibiotics. One method of government regulation could be to prevent the use of antibiotics in cases which they aren’t a necessity to ensure survival. If one person has a cold, but they are fighting fit and their immune system is up to shape to cure the disease, there is no need for antibiotics. Doctors shouldn’t prescribe antibiotics to those which are more than capable of having their immune system fight off the disease, because the use of antibiotics contributes to a global crisis, compared to, on the other hand, a handful of people having to deal with a cold for a slightly longer amount of time. This system would not only help prevent AMR, but it would also prevent the misdiagnosis of antibiotics on those who were actually infected with viral infections, to which antibiotics would have no effect. Additionally, greater regulation as to the private sale of antibiotics. This would have to affect medical manufacturers and could include moving to drugs providers who do not sell their antibiotics for individual private consumption.
Another thing necessary within the medical industry, is better regulation on which antibiotics can be used and when, those capable of treating the general populace should be used more leniently, and a few strains of antibiotics should be kept under complete lock and key, including no use in the agricultural industry, and no use in general medical practice. Only in the most extreme of cases.

Within the livestock industry, it is necessary for the government to regulate the use of antibiotics to an extreme degree. Including contamination regulations and regular tests on wastewater and water runoff from farms which use antibiotics, the regulation of which antibiotics can be used, and other such regulations. This will likely increase the price of farming, so to counter the problem, the government could either lower rates of taxation/subsidise the cost of farming in the UK to a greater extent, or on the contrary, could set up protectionist measures to ensure that within the UK, our farmers can compete. The prior mechanisms would be more profitable in the long run, and hopefully, as discussed earlier, lab-grown meat will take over from the farming industry as the main source of meat production in the future.

On a global scale more must be done to prevent AMR. What is currently happening in China and other developing nations is rapidly increasing rates of antibiotic resistance occurring, and the residents of these countries will feel the greatest impact. Countries must come together internationally to prevent the sale and misuse of antibiotics, they must work within an alliance to ensure that companies are properly regulated and not polluting the landscape with antibiotics and superbugs. We must work with airline companies to ensure that planes and methods of global transport have better hygiene mechanisms, and places such as airports are kept as sterile environments for bacteria. These are the main points of international spread contagion.


Section 4 – Conclusion

4.1 – The Impact

To conclude on the issue of the impact would be a misnomer of sorts. If left untreated, the number of deaths per annum could exceed cancer, treatments such as basic surgery and blood transfusions would be impossible, and the smallest of scratches could cause death. But this is the worst case scenario. This is what would happen if we do not act to tackle the problem.

In all reality this is unlikely, action is being taken more prevalently and at a greater pace than ever before. The potential problems have not only been outlined, but they have also gained the attention of the scientific community, the press, and now even the politicians.

With proper research, the effects of AMR can be slowed down, we can all work to lower the rates and this would lessen the impact. In reality, the deaths will likely be nowhere near as high, and people will be able to continue with their medical treatments like before. However there is still the risk, that our attempts to subvert the causes of anti-microbial resistance fail, and in this situation, the effect on human life would be catastrophic, it could cause mass poverty, conflict, slow down economic growth.

4.2 – The cure

Several mitigating factors will come into play over this debate. With many factors, there is not one simple cure. It will take an assorted effort from across the board to prevent AMR. With regulation within the farming industry, regulation within the medical sphere, better research and funding into education and new medicines, and a global effort to prevent the misuse of antibiotics we can solve this problem, but action needs to be taken. As a result of this report, individuals should be more aware of the dangers of AMR, and of the scientific mechanisms and societal causes. And as a result, pressure should be put to all parliamentarians in order to help solve this problem; it is the government which needs to act, and more can be done on their part.

A final word shall be this: for us to secure our own certainty for tomorrow, we must act today. Influencing change can be as simple as signing a petition, or writing a letter, and our own Members of Parliament have far greater a sway and influence than most people know. To save the lives of millions, all it could take is a letter from all those which read this report.

Bibliography available on request.

Could lab-grown meat save the human race?

To many, the concept of manufacturing meat seems like a new phenomenon, with advances in genetic science, cloning, and general biology, however, it has a rather in-depth history. The first landmark experiment leading to the development of in vitro meat is the 1912 experiment performed by Alexis Carrel. In these tests, Carrel took tissue culture from an embryonic chicken heart, and used a mechanism of structuring and providing this culture with the nutrients necessary for continued growth, thus aiming to prove that living cells could survive indefinitely under the right conditions. Whilst the results of his experiments were anomalous and were never successfully repeated, it was the first such use of the method which modern, cultured meat, science would use.

Moving forward, one of the first citings of the theoretical possibilities of utilising such technology for making consumable meat came from a rather famous Conservative Prime Minister. Winston Churchill, wrote that “The great mass of human beings, absorbed in the toils, cares and activities of life, are only dimly conscious of the pace at which mankind has begun to travel”. This is the first sentence of Churchill’s 1931 article “Fifty Years Hence”. In the piece, Churchill discusses his predictions and prophecies for the next fifty years, and although Churchill is perhaps a tad optimistic at times, it provides an accurate prediction overall for developments such as nuclear science and cloning. In one paragraph, Churchill writes that “We shall escape the absurdity of growing a whole chicken in order to eat the breast or wing, by growing these parts separately under a suitable medium”, and thus the concept of in vitro meat was firmly set in motion.

A time travelling Winston Churchill wielding a lab-grown chicken drumstick in the year 2067

Not quite fifty years hence, but a mere eighty-two years later, the first public trial of lab-grown meat for human consumption was broadcast to the world. In 2013, a group of three food critics tested, on live television, the quality of lab-grown meat. At that time the cost of one lab-grown burger was around £250,000. However, since then, the costs have plummeted. Peter Verstrate, the head of Mosa Meats, a company which is planning to mass commercialise cultured meats, stated in April 2015, that he was confident that the commercialisation of lab-grown meat will happen within five years – and he is likely to be correct. Since the 2013 test, the cost of one burger has fallen from that £250,000 price tag to around £8 per piece.

With an ever-growing demand for meat from developing countries, and the mounting environmental concerns around the practice of producing and sustaining the current agricultural industry, lab-grown meat is a welcome and positive story that can, and no doubt will revolutionise the food industry. The cost of meat could be reduced to an all-time low as the technology evolves, including a wide variety of beneficial health implications.

In current procedures, scientists biopsy stem or satellite muscle cells from a group of general muscle cells taken from the animal of choice. The cells taken are responsible for repairing the muscle in the donor animal. These cells are then immersed in a nutrient rich medium which encourages their potentially indefinite growth. To put this growth into context, there can be hundreds of muscle repair cells in just a few strands of muscle tissue, and estimates have suggested that as few as ten of these cells could, under the maximum ideal conditions, produce 50 tonnes of meat.

Next in the process comes an area which scientists have not yet fully mastered; lab-grown cells, much like naturally grown cells, need exercise and general wear and tear to form the same texture as “actual” meat. This problem additionally comes in the structuring of the growth of cells. It has thus far proven difficult to structure the lab-grown cells in such a way that they produce any three-dimensional form of structure. Mainly the procedure creates a thin layer of grown cells, which can be removed and turned into what is essentially a minced meat type substance. To produce a fully formed chicken breast or steak, it would require far more development, but nothing is beyond reach. The main issue is that this common procedure produces only muscle, there is yet to be a method developed to simultaneously grow different cell types (blood, fat, muscle etc) in a natural pattern. However, once these, and a few other obstacles have been overcome, lab-grown meat production could create meat which has an identical likeness to naturally grown meat.

The latest Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) figures suggest that the agricultural industry produces around 14.5% of all total greenhouse gas emissions. Whilst the FAO has stated that emissions from the agricultural industry can, with the right implementation of waste reductions and energy saving techniques, be reduced by a third, it does not make an overall difference due to the increasing demand for agricultural products with a rising population. By the year 2050, it is estimated that the demand for meat and milk will increase 70%. Duncan Williamson, the corporate stewardship manager at WWF-UK, has stated that “Around 30% of global biodiversity loss can be attributed to livestock production”. According to the WWF “The net loss in global forest area during the 1990s was about 94 million hectares (equivalent to 2.4% of total forests). It is estimated that in the 1990s, almost 70% of deforested areas were converted to agricultural land.” Regardless of one’s political position, it is difficult to comprehend the vast scale of the damage caused by the meat industry, and the potential benefits that producing meat in factories could have. An independent study from the Environmental Sciences & Technology Journal has shown that lab-grown beef takes 55% less energy to produce, 4% of the total greenhouse emissions and 1% of the total land use. One of the major criticisms however of the practice, is that since the levels of energy consumption are so high, and estimates as to how much energy will be needed for a level of in vitro meat production on a commercial scale are not known, it is said that the solution could be equally as polluting as the current meat industry, although indirectly. However, with advances in power generation, such as the emergence of cleaner fossil fuel power generation technology, nuclear and renewable energy sources, high energy consumption does not necessarily indicate that the process is not “green”, only that the current method of producing electricity is not.

A problem that will cause us havoc over the next few decades is the growing rate of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in bacteria. Without effective antibiotics, medical procedures will become ever more difficult. The World Health Organisation has stated that without antibiotics, procedures such as “organ transplantation, cancer chemotherapy, diabetes management and major surgery (for example, caesarean sections or hip replacements) become very high risk”. In addition to common diseases such as pneumonia and chest infections could become extremely lethal once again. Such an eventuality would increase the rates of mortality, increase the average length of stay within a hospital, and dramatically and adversely impact the economic standing of nations. For us to prevent widespread antimicrobial resistance, a major step must be taken to do two things: reduce the rate at which microbes are becoming resistant, and two, develop new strains of antibiotics. The latter is a discussion for another time, but the prior is relevant within this context. The intensive farming industry is one of the largest causes of AMR that we’ve identified. In essence, antibiotics are being used within intensive battery farming to ensure that animals are able to survive in squalid conditions, this is used to reduce the price of meat, and to also increase the amount produced. According to a report produced by an independent body chaired by the British economist Jim O’Neill, farming within the US uses up to 70% of antibiotics which are critical to medical use in human beings. These antibiotics are used in healthy animals to both speed up growth, and as a preventative measure to stop disease spreading due to the unhealthy conditions the animals are kept in, as a result, the levels of AMR is becoming ever more prevalent – especially within countries that have massively developed economically over the past 20 or so years. Due to a lack of regulation, antibiotics which are kept as a last resort to save the lives of human in case of widespread AMR are being used within the farming industry, because of this, bacteria is ever more likely to adapt to become resistant. A recent study from China has shown that some strains of E. coli have developed resistance to colistin, a form of polymyxin antibiotic. This antibiotic is a last resort antibiotic, one of the last effective forms in our antibiotics armoury.

The waste runoff from intensive farming is another major concern when antibiotics are used in farming, there is very little that can be done to prevent these antibiotics escaping into the environment. Analysis into sludge at wastewater facilities has shown a growing level of resistance across the spectrum. It is evident that with in vitro meat that there is no necessity to facilitate the rearing of animals, and thus there needs not be any form of antibiotic use over the lifespan of livestock. The effect this has on AMR will be substantial. Potentially positively affecting the lives of millions over the next few decades. If there is a single overwhelming argument in favour of the development and use of commercially viable in vitro meat production, this is it. Opponents to cultured meat state that despite growing levels of AMR in intensively farmed animals, there are precautions which can be taken to ensure general levels of AMR are reduced, namely by regulating and reducing the use of antibiotics within the farming industry, however to do this, the agricultural industry must raise the standards of care for animals, thus increasing the price of meat. This is another area where in vitro meat could one day beat normally reared meat.

The cost of developing a lab-grown burger in 2013 was £250,000, by 2015 that price had dropped to £8. With the technology still in development, it would not be too foolish a projection to suggest that this price will drop further. The cost of meat grown in a lab will almost certainly reach a price that is cheaper than naturally raised meat, with the quality and health implications being better by all measurements. With less of an environmental footprint, a reduced effect on the development of antimicrobial resistance, and with in vitro meat being potentially lower-priced than battery farmed meat, the arguments for its consumption are great. Without even touching upon the morality of consuming another creature in being, the emergence of lab-grown meat is a positive development for society.


Sticks and stones.

There is a hole stabbed in my heart
And lo my soul has torn in half
I fill the void with all these toys
And all your sighs and all your tears
It’s mighty hard, I fly too far
I hold it up the world so high
I jab the dark, love lost is stark
The sun too close, he tried to march.

The night doth mark, the beats restart,
It hits the bullseye like a dart.
I sever heads, to disconnect
Alas, this demon nay depart.
But like frayed threads, they have now spread
The crown on top, it doth dispart
For what was none there now is one
A fatal blow on my part.

And that is the spot, blank or not
The bullet’s wound is like a knife
It’s burning hot, that piercing shot
It is the ending of your life
A gift of fire for the earth,
I am the last, I am the first
I’ve come too far to close that box,
The curse inside; my bones it mocks

My weaknesses, they cannot heal,
I kill he who does not feel
My rage, my wrath, that Trojan horse
Came to my life, with no remorse
And at the end nicks light o’ dear
The dark of everlasting night is near
The pain and anguish; turned to stone,
With but a glimpse upon her throne.

There’s cuts to skin, twelve layers deep,
Labours one shall ever reap
And in this labyrinth of life
All hope is lost, but at what price?
Where are you now; dear Gods of mine?
My love in life, be gone in time.

Why the House of Lords should remain unelected, and what reforms should be made to strengthen democracy.

The House of Lords is an institution within the British system of governance which today serves as the upper chamber in our bicameral political system. Its role is to act as a check and balance to the power of the House of Commons. It’s certainly not perfect, but it has developed and evolved since the very first “model parliament” of 1295.

Recently we have seen more calls than ever to see a proportion of the House of Lords become an elected body. This was last attempted via the House of Lords Reform Bill 2012. This bill was introduced by Nick Clegg to Parliament whilst he was Deputy Prime Minister – showing the scope of political power behind electoral reform of the House of Lords. Of course, this bill was quashed following opposition from within the Conservative Party, and rightfully so. Attempts to reform the House of Lords, to turn it into an elected body, must be opposed.

So why not an elected upper chamber? Well, primarily, the unelected nature allows the Lords to contain peers which otherwise would not be politically active and hence ensures that relevant expertise is incorporated directly into the law-making system of the United Kingdom. For example, peers like Lord Colwyn, who was a Member of the Royal College of Surgeons of England and Royal Society of Medicine. Knowledge such as this is crucial in a parliamentary system which relies on reason to rule, rather than charisma and the ability to act as a politician.

Additionally, the tenure created in an unelected body means Lords do what is right, rather than appeal to populism in order to get elected. Sometimes what is right isn’t popular. It would be popular to reduce all taxes and increase spending by many within the electorate, but, obviously, such an action is not feasible by any means, and thus such an action could never be sanctioned by a member of the House of Lords with levels of intelligence that respective members should all have. They cannot fear campaigning for election; they are accountable to the nation and not the subsection of society that they would purport to represent.

The House of Lord’s appointed nature also means that scrutiny is properly administered regardless of the government in power. A politicised, elected, House of Lords could circumvent scrutiny from the lower chamber simply due to ideological concurrence with the party in power in the Commons, thus removing any real checks and balances. If we look at today’s political system and assume that a House of Lords would be elected in between the General Elections, then it would follow that there’s nothing to stop the Conservatives (for example) in this country being both the majority within the Commons and the Lords. Such an event would cause a severe conflict of interest relating to the aims of both chambers. Proper scrutiny would not be possible when party whips could easily threaten any Peers which act outside the party line with deselection or lowered campaign funds when it comes to the re-election due to their rebellious nature. If we turn our attention to the current state of affairs within the Labour Party, there have been various allegations of a potential mass deselection of Parliamentarians who aren’t loyal to Jeremy Corbyn – if true, such a situation could easily occur within an elected House of Lords.

A final reason why an elected chamber is unnecessary is because of the limitations already in place within the current system of governance. The Parliament Act of 1911 removed the ability for the House of Lords to use its suspensory veto and confirmed the supremacy of the elected House of Commons in doing so, meaning the House of Lords could only suspend and amend bills for a 2 year period. Additionally, it meant that all Money Bills presented to the Lords must be passed within 1 month, or they would be presented to Her Majesty regardless of the consent of the Lords. Subsequent amendments to the Parliament act in 1949 saw the Lords can only delay a bill for up to 1 year. The Salisbury Convention also means that no policy outlined in a party’s manifesto can directly be rejected by the Lords, and thus the democratic nature of the Commons is protected, and the primacy of the elected chamber remains integral and intact.

That being said, the House of Lords could be reformed to increase its effectiveness further; the removal of political parties would ensure that the central party system has little control over the outcome of the votes within the Lords. This reform would work to create a more cooperative and expertise based House of Lords, and less of a politicised unelected chamber. Secondly, the removal of the ability for the Prime Minister to advise the Queen on which members of society would be pertinent for appointments. This would reduce the nepotism and patronage that the Prime Minister can utilise for political gain, it also means that the appointment of peers isn’t entirely political in the Minister appointing those whom she or he knows would be sympathetic to the causes which they would pursue. Following on from this point, it’s necessary for the number of peers within the House of Lords to be capped; equal in number to the House of Commons could be a target to prevent the flooding of the House of Lords, in addition to the fact that the Upper Chamber can seat fewer than half of all Peers regardless. The size and cost of government would be reduced, whilst additionally not affecting the effectiveness of the revising chamber.

Currently, a proportion of the House of Lords is appointed by the House of Lords Appointments Commission. Established in the year 2000, this is an independent committee which seeks out to appoint people to the lords who are independently minded and who have the relevant expertise to work within the House of Lords. A reform to allow this body to advise all appointments to the Queen would be in the interests of democracy rather than to have the Prime Minister give advice the Queen on the majority of occasions. The strengthening of this body to allow those that are of great value to the nation, and with specialist knowledge, to become Peers is the way forward to best scrutinise parliament.

Lords existing for entirely religious reasons is contrary to the purpose of the Lords. The Lords, by its very existence, should exist as a revisionary body, scrutinising proposals which come from the House of Commons to safeguard the constitutional legitimacy and effectiveness of any bills which are set to be passed. The selection of a person “by God” does not a qualified Lord make and, in its current format, it should follow those Lords who profess to represent those of the religion should equally have a place within the Commons based on religious beliefs, or that these people need no representation in the Lords either. Thinking from an independent standpoint, it would seem ludicrous to have members of the House of Lords in existence solely to represent the views of atheists, so why is it at all necessary for there to be a subsection within the Lords to protect a certain religious grouping?

Finally, the House of Lords Reform Act of 2014 allowed members of the House of Lords to formally resign or retire, something which previously was constitutionally impossible. Following on from this innovation, the setting of a retirement age for Lords to ensure the quality of scrutiny and standards within the Lords would help make the House of Lords a more effective body within the British political system. Ultimately, the revisions outlined within this article are reforms which would strengthen the ability of the Lords to revise and scrutinise the Commons, as well as fortify the UK’s democracy.