The Political Economy Review 2017

May’s plans on attacking terrorism are far more direct than that of Labour’s. She still believes in combating extremism abroad, whether that be through airstrikes in Syria or the deployment of infantry elsewhere. Moreover, in wake of the London Bridge attack she announced that she wants to change human rights laws stating "if our human rights laws get in the way of doing it, we will change the law so we can do it.” An alteration to these laws would make it easier for the British government to deport suspected terrorists and extremists, seen in the case of the deportation of Abu Qatada spanning over several years and finally ending in 2013. Changes to human rights laws would also mean that suspected terrorists could be detained without charge for longer periods of time and those found guilty of terrorism charges would have to face longer prison sentences for their acts. However, this was met by fierce opposition by Labour and other political outlets. Finally, May has promised to combat terrorism on the web in an attempt to stop communication amongst extremists. This has already been seen in the ‘Snoopers’ Charter’ which expanded the powers of the UK Intelligence Community. Regardless, this has been subjected to much public debate with many claiming that it infringes upon civil rights and undermines the very freedom of the British people if the government have the power and authority to track their every move on the online world. Ultimately, the recent atrocities have caused a shift in political opinion as to what needs to be done about terrorism. May and her team are leaning towards a harsher, straight to the point route in which decreased human rights and tougher action can be used to combat extremism at home or abroad. On the other hand, Corbyn and his team have chosen to take a softer, by comparison, approach, targeting communities in Britain and helping those effected. Yet, what both parties share in common is the knowledge that changes need to be brought into the political climate in order to maintain support from the public and knowing that they feel safe with the government successfully on top and ahead of potential attacks.


The following essay has been submitted to the Cambridge Fitzwilliam College Land Economy Essay Competition 2017

‘The best way to ensure affordable housing and a strong economy across the UK is to subsidise job creation in the North of England, thereby reducing demand in London and stimulating the regional economy.’ Discuss. J AY W ONG

Affordable housing remains as one of the key issues in the UK; average house prices are 7.6 times the average annual salary (ONS, 2016). In this essay, affordable housing will be taken to mean housing that is affordable in the market, in respect of the national average salary, not relating to government’s provision of affordable housing. This divergence is particularly predominant between the North and South, where disparity in economic growth and affordability prevail. The North is characterised by lower growth and lower house prices, while the South has an overheated housing market and high growth. This contributes to the North-South divide in the UK. Policies subsidising jobs creation in the North have been suggested to indirectly foster affordable housing and ensure strong and inclusive economic growth across the UK, through shifting the demand of housing from the South to the North. Throughout this essay I will examine the economic theories, practical implications and limitations behind this policy. Ultimately I will argue that the policy is not the best way to tackle the housing affordability problem and promote sustainable growth.


Made with FlippingBook Annual report