text: The state retain control of schools - freedom, in this context, is illusory  The state funds education using taxes taken from everyone in society, not just those who have children. Therefore the state has a duty to benefit the whole of society, not just parents and children, when funding education. It is therefore entirely legitimate for the state to use schools to fulfil other societal purposes. A good example of this is the question of teaching citizenship in schools: it does not necessarily help children to pass exams, and so schools do not have a strong incentive to insure that children are taught it. However, it fulfils government goals of helping to ensure that people become functioning members of our democracy.  When schools are privatised it becomes increasingly difficult for the government to ensure that such agendas are followed in schools.


title: x education education general secondary house would fund education using

text: The most vulnerable children would be left behind by the scheme  Even if a voucher scheme is used, parents still need to have considerable input in order that their children are able to access the best educational opportunities. Thus, those children who are most vulnerable, i.e. those with inadequate home support structures, will find that they are unable to access the best schools as their parents may lack the desire or knowledge to find out which schools are the best in their area.  Further, this problem will be exacerbated by the subsequent dearth of funding at the worst schools.


text: Admittedly, it may take extra measures to help children in the very poorest areas. This is required under the status quo and could still be provided under a voucher scheme (e.g. extra funding for children in deprived areas). However, there are many children in between the poorest of the poor and the richest of the rich who are currently excluded from the opportunities afforded by some of the best schools. These children, as you accept, will see an increase in the choice of schools. The fact that this motion does not solve all of the problems in education does not prove that it does not solve any.


title: university digital freedoms access knowledge universities should make all

text: Public funding does not mean that everything should be free and open to use by the public. We do not expect to be allowed to use buildings that are built as government offices as if they were our own. The government builds large amounts of infrastructure such as airports and railways but we don’t expect to be able to use them for free.


text: Most universities are publically funded so should have to be open with their materials.  The United States University system is famously expensive and as a result it is probably the system in a developed country that has least public funding yet $346.8billion was spent, mostly by the states, on higher education in 2008-9. [1] In Europe almost 85% of universities funding came from government sources. [2] Considering the huge amounts of money spent on universities by taxpayers they should be able to demand access to the academic work those institutions produce.  Even in countries where there are tuition fees that make up some of the funding for the university it is right that the public should have access to these materials as the tuition fees are being paid for the personal teaching time provided by the lecturers not for the academics’ publications. Moreover those who have paid for a university course would benefit by the materials still being available to access after they have finished university  [1] Caplan, Bruan, “Correction: Total Government Spending on Higher Education”, Library of Economics and Liberty, 16 November 2012,   [2] Vught, F., et al., “Funding Higher Education: A View Across Europe”, Ben Jongbloed Center for Higher Education Policy Studies University of Twente, 2010.


text: Open access makes little difference to research. If an academic needs to use an article they don’t have access to they can pay for it and gain access quickly and efficiently.  The benefits to the economy may also be overstated; we don’t know how much benefit it will create. But we do know it would be badly damaging to the academic publishing industry. We also know there are risks with putting everything out in the open as economies that are currently research leaders will be handing out their advances for free. There is an immense amount of stealing of intellectual property, up to $400 billion a year, so research is obviously considered to be economically worth something. [1] With open access the proposal is instead to make everything available for free for others to take as and when they wish.  [1] Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, “Backgrounder on the Rogers-Ruppersberger Cybersecurity Bill”, U.S. House of Representatives,


text: Opens up education  Higher education, as with other levels of education, should be open to all. Universities are universally respected as the highest form of educational institution available and it is a matter of principle that everyone should have access to this higher level of education. Unfortunately not everyone in the world has this access usually because they cannot afford it, but it may also be because they are not academically inclined. This does not however mean that it is right to simply cut them off from higher educational opportunities. Should those who do not attend university not have access to the same resources as those who do?  This can have an even greater impact globally than within an individual country. 90% of the world’s population currently have no access to higher education. Providing access to all academic work gives them the opportunities that those in developed countries already have. [1]  [1] Daniel, Sir John, and Killion, David, “Are open educational resources the key to global economic growth?”, Guardian Professional, 4 July 2012,


text: Making these academic materials available to the general public does not mean they are useful to anyone. Many of the materials universities produce are not useful unless the reader has attended the relevant lectures. Rather than simply putting those lectures that are recorded and course handbooks online what is needed to open up education is systematically designed online courses that are available to all. Unfortunately what this provides will be a profusion of often overlapping and contradictory materials with little guidance for how to navigate through them for those who are not involved in the course in question.


text: Most students most of the time stick to the core areas of their course and thus are not likely to encounter difficulties with finding the relevant information. For those who do require resources that the university library does not have access to they can use interlibrary loan for a small fee to cover the cost of sending the book or article between universities. [1] The universities in most countries can therefore effectively split the cost of access by specialising in certain subjects which limits the number of journals they need to buy while making the resources available to their students if they really need them.  [1] Anon., “Inter-library loans” Birkbeck University of London.  Within the UK Cambridge charges £3 to £6,  in Europe the University of Vienna charges €2  while the United States is higher with Yale charging between $20-30


text: Openness benefits research and the economy  Open access can be immensely beneficial for research. It increases the speed of access to publications and opens research up to a wider audience. [1] Some of the most important research has been made much more accessible due to open access. The Human Genome Project would have been an immense success either way but it is doubtful that its economic impact of $796billion would have been realised without open access.  The rest of the economy benefits too. It has been estimated that switching to open access would generate £100million of economic activity in the United Kingdom as a result of reduced research costs for business and shorter development as a result of being able to access a much broader range of research. [2]  [1] Anon., “Open access research advantages”, University of Leicester,   [2] Carr, Dave, and Kiley, Robert, “Open access to science helps us all”, New Statesman, 13 April 2012.


text: Students would be able to benefit from being able to use resources at other universities  Having paid for access to universities and the materials they provide for research students have a right to expect that they will have all the necessary materials available. Unfortunately this is not always the case. University libraries are unable to afford all the university journals they wish to have access to or need for their courses. Therefore any student who wants to go into areas not anticipated by the course they are enrolled with will find that they do not have access to the materials they require. They then face the cost of getting individual access to an online journal article which can be up to $42, despite there being almost zero marginal cost to the publisher. [1] This even affects the biggest and best resourced university libraries. Robert Darnton the director of Harvard University’s library which pays $3.5million per year for journal articles says “The system is absurd” and “academically restrictive” instead “the answer will be open-access journal publishing”. [2]  [1] Sciverse, “Pay-per-view”, Elsevier,   [2] Sample, Ian, “Harvard University says it can’t afford journal publishers’ prices”, The Guardian, 24 April 2012.


text: The vast majority of people who go to University are not doing so simply because they are interested in a subject and want to find out more. Instead they are after the qualification and improved job prospects university provides. Even those few who are in large part studying out of curiosity and interest will likely be doing so at university because they like the student life and want the experience.  However having courses and materials out in the open can even help universities with recruitment. Providing open access boosts a university’s reputation abroad which helps it in the international student market. Open access to academic work also helps give potential students a much better idea with what they will be studying which is very useful for students who are unsure where to choose. The benefits are obvious as shown by 35% of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s students choose the university after looking at its OpenCourseWare. [1]  [1] Daniel, Sir John, and Killion, David, “Are open educational resources the key to global economic growth?”, Guardian Professional, 4 July 2012,


text: Academic work is not about profit. For most researchers the aim is to satisfy curiosity or to increase the sum of knowledge. Others are motivated by a desire to do good, or possibly for recognition. None of these things require there to be profit for the university.  Moreover we should remember that the profit is not going to the individual who did the research, there is therefore no moral justification that the person has put effort in and so deserves to profit from it. The university does not even take the risk, which is born by the taxpayer who pays the majority of the research budget. Much of the profit from publishing this knowledge does not even go to the university. Instead academic publishers make huge profits through rentier capitalism. They have profit margins of 36% despite not doing the research, or taking any risk that goes into funding the research. [1]  [1] Monbiot, George, “Academic publishers make Murdoch look like a socialist”, The Guardian, 29 August 2011,


text: Making everything free to access will damage universities ability to tap private funding  For most universities even if the government is generous with funding it will still need for some projects require private funding. When providing money for research projects the government often requires cost sharing so the university needs to find other sources of funding. [1] Third parties however are unlikely to be willing to help provide funding for research if they know that all the results of that research will be made open to anyone and everyone. These businesses are funding specific research to solve a particular problem with the intention of profiting from the result. Even if universities themselves don’t want to profit from their research they cannot ignore the private funding as it is rapidly growing, up 250% in the U.S. from 1985-2005, while the government support is shrinking. [2]  [1] Anon. (November 2010), “Research & Sponsored Projects”, University of Michigan.   [2] Schindler, Adam, “Follow the Money Corporate funding of university research”, Berkley Science Review, Issue 13.


text: Who will write and edit the work?  You can’t take the end result out of the system and assume all the rest of it will continue as usual. Journal articles don’t write themselves; there will still be costs for editors, typesetters, reviewing etc., as well as the time and cost of the writer. The average cost of publishing an article is about £4000. [1]  There have been two suggested forms of open access ‘Gold’ in which authors pay publishers article publication charges and ‘Green’ under which the author self-archives their papers in open access repositories. The gold option that the UK intends to implement could mean universities having to find an extra £60million a year. [2] In either case the cost is being put on the author.  This is exactly the same when asking academics to put their lectures, lecture notes, bibliographies etc online. They are being asked to put in more hours grappling with technology without being paid for it.  [1] Moghaddam, Golnessa Galyani, “Why Are Scholarly Journals Costly even with Electronic Publishing?”  p.9  [2] Ayris, Paul, “Why panning for gold may be detrimental to open access research”, Guardian Professional, 23 July 2012.


text: Less incentive to study at university  If everything that University provides is open to all then there is less incentive to study at university. Anyone who is studying in order to learn about a subject rather than achieve a particular qualification will no longer need to attend the university in order to fulfil their aim. The actual benefit of university education is less in learning content per se than engaging with new ideas critically, something that is frequently more difficult in an online environment.  Moreover if only some countries or institutions were to implement such open access then it makes more sense for any students who are intending to study internationally to go elsewhere as they will still be able to use the resources made available by that university. Open access if not implemented universally is therefore damaging to universities attempts to attract lucrative international students who often pay high tuition fees.


text: Universities deserve to profit from their work  Universities are providing a service just like almost any other business. They provide a service in terms of educating students who are enrolled with them and secondly they conduct research on a wide range of subjects. In both of these cases the university deserves to make a profit out of their work.  When acting as an educator universities are in an educational free market, this is the case even when the cost is provided by the state. All universities are aiming to attract as many students as possible and earn as much as possible from fees. If the university is successful it will be able to charge more as it will attract students from further afield.  While Universities may make a profit on research or even teaching this profit is for the benefit of society as a whole as the profits are usually simply reinvested in the University’s education and infrastructure. [1]  [1] Anon. “What does the money get spent on?” The University of Sheffield, 2013.


text: This is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of those who fund the research in the first place; the taxpayer. The taxpayer (or in some cases private funder) pays for the research to be done and so is paying for the paper to be written. It then does not make sense that the taxpayer should pay again in order to access the research that they paid to have done in the first place. Yes there are small costs associated with checking and editing the articles but these could easily be added into research budgets especially as it would mean cutting out an extra cost that occurs due to the profit margins of the academic publishers. As Neelie Kroes, European Commission Vice-President for the Digital Agenda, says “Taxpayers should not have to pay twice for scientific research”. [1]  [1] Kroes, Neelie, “Scientific data: open access to research results will boost Europe's innovation capacity”, Europa.eu, 17 July 2012.


text: If business wants certain research to use for profit then it is free to do so. However it should entirely fund that research rather than relying on academic institutions to do the research and the government to come up with part of the funding. This would then allow the government to focus its funding on basic research, the kind of research that pushes forward the boundaries of knowledge which may have many applications but is not specifically designed with these in mind. This kind of curiosity driven research can be very important for example research into retroviruses gave the grounding that meant that antiretrovirals to control AIDS were available within a decade of the disease appearing. [1]  [1] Chakradhar, Shraddha, “The Case for Curiosity”, Harvard Medical School, 10 August 2012,


title: teaching university house would abolish standardized tests university admission

text: Every other indicator is also skewed in favour of high-income students. They tend to have parents who are better educated and are interested and much more involved in their children’s education, as well as greater access relevant materials such as books and computers. Tutoring academically, while it may not involve having tutors test for a student, is probably much more impactful in the long-run, they may not be able to do extra-curricular activities but can help with homework (as can engaged parents), so would be just as likely to have an impact on coursework or another method of assessment as it does on the SATs.


text: Standardized Tests are skewed in favour of the wealthy  Standardized tests are inherently skewed in favour of high-income students. Tutoring is and industry unto itself and the resulting rise in scores among high income students skews the scale against students whose families cannot afford it. By contrast, even if the money is available, the impact that tutoring can have on a student’s academic performance is limited. A tutor cannot write papers or take tests for them, and nor can they answer questions in class, or participate in sports or other extracurricular activities. As a consequence, eliminating easily tutored standardized tests helps even the playing field between richer and poorer students.


text: Language will be as much of an issue in understanding in college as it will be for the tests and is likely to be as much of a difficulty in any other method of determining college admissions.  Otherwise these are objections to individual questions on the test, and not to the system itself. The very fact they have made have ensured that the same problems have not re-occurred. Indeed the analogies were dropped in 2005 and scores for the poorest students increased as a result showing that SATs can simply be changed when problems are found with the testing. [1] The problems with a purely grade based system are however intrinsic, and much harder for individuals to improve.  [1] Cloud, ‘What’s Good about the New SAT Test’, 2006


text: Standardized tests result in teachers “teaching the test”  The importance attached to such tests leads to teachers actively “teaching the test.” The result is that many teachers, rather than instilling useful skills or providing a balanced curriculum, end up trying to focus on things that occur on given tests. While this is not a huge problem with the SAT itself, it is a serious problem with subject tests like the SAT 2s, AP Exams, and the British A-Levels. This undermines the provision of education in the country.


text: Standardized tests are arbitrary  Standardized tests are inherently arbitrary. They reduce an applicant’s entire academic career to a single one-day session. The result is an inherently unrepresentative test which fails to paint an accurate picture. What if a student has a bad day? What if they do poorly on the specific test questions? In the SAT’s there is an error of measurement of about 30 points either way out of 800, this is the potential difference between where the student really is and what his or her score on the day was. [1] By contrast, looking at their entire academic record ensures that admissions officers will get a far more comprehensive picture of their actual ability. The law of averages means that bad days and tests will be balanced out with good ones, with the result that their academic record, the result of years of work, will reflect their true performance.  [1] Cloud, John, ‘What’s Good about the New SAT Test’, Time, 1 September 2006,


text: A student’s academic record tends to measure very different things from what a standardized test does. GPA tends to be based on repetitive assignments such as homework, and in many cases students receive at least some academic credit for simply attending class. By contrast, standardized tests reward ability, by seeing whether or not at the end of the process students actually learned the material in question. Performance under pressure is an important skill to measure, especially for top institutions, while sifting through the differing standards for what goes into the grades in different school districts is simply not possible.


text: There is a degree of hypocrisy in arguing that the tests are classist and racist and then complaining that schools take too long in preparing students for them. Ideally the tests should be on relevant subjects that will be useful to the student and is needed as part of a well-rounded education that prepares the student for life, and if they are not they are flawed.  Many of the skills required for a successful performance on A-Levels or on the AP Essays are remarkably similar to those needed for University level written work. As a consequence it is wrong to argue they are of no relevance.


text: All measurements are to one degree or another arbitrary. If necessary the scale can be increased, or there can be movement towards a more essay-based exam like the British A-Levels rather than the current multiple-choice format. These changes in fact have already been made with the transformation of the SAT in 2006 which increased the maximum score from 1600 to 2400 and added an essay. [1]  [1] Cloud, ‘What’s Good about the New SAT Test’, 2006


text: Standardized tests discriminate against minorities  Minority students perform less well on tests like the SAT, even when correction is made for income. The test with its reading comprehension test and being done in English is obviously biased against students from households where English is not the dominant language as they are much less likely to understand the questions.  Even when English language skills are not a problem the question choice can contain a cultural bias. One analogy question on the 2003 SAT used the word “regatta” which minority students were unlikely to be familiar with. Having this kind of bias is obviously unfair and can never be fully accounted for in a diverse country such as the United States of America where those who set the wording of the questions will never know all possible perspectives.


text: Standardized tests exaggerate small differences in performance  Most tests were designed in an earlier era when far fewer students took them. The large number of students who now take tests like the SATs results in a situation in which the scoring scale magnifies small differences in performance into large differences in scores. Two questions wrong out of 80 on the math section of the SAT may well produce a score of 760 while three questions wrong will result in a 720. 40 points can mean difference between admission and rejection for many candidates, while telling us nothing about the different abilities of the students involved. Indeed on average for 88% of applicants their SAT score will predict their final college grade rank no more accurately than a pair of dice. [1]  [1] Elert, Glenn, ‘The SAT Aptitude of Demographics?’, 5 May 1992,


text: Applicants are not the same. They come from different backgrounds, attend different schools, and have different opportunities. It is “false meritocracy” to compare them with students from an entirely different background. Students should be examined individually, and their performance compared with other students with a similar background. The best way to do this is to allow individual schools to grade their student body, and to then have Universities compare how those students did vis-à-vis their peers within that school.


text: Alternative factors that can be considered in the admissions process  SATs are mathematical and it is therefore possible to objectively evaluate them. This is why they are so popular, they provide a benchmark of comparison across the whole education system in a way that any non-standardized assessment never could. This does not only benefit universities in providing an objective measure to compare admissions candidates but it also gives the government statistics with which to measure the progress of schools.  Any other form of assessment would mean switching to much more subjective factors. Traditionally such factors, such as extracurricular activities, volunteer work, and even access to references are all more easily available to high income students. Opportunities may not even be offered in poorer school districts. Complaining that poorer and minority students do less well on the SAT ignores the fact that the test provides one of their best opportunities to impress admissions officials.


text: It is the only single standard that everyone ends up taking  All measures applied during University admissions processes are arbitrary to one extent or another. Grades depend on the whims on individual instructors, curriculum choices, and school quality. Every single one of the flaws the proposition applies to the SATs or other standardized tests may well be true, but the fact is that they are true for everyone who takes them. The SATs are the only part of the application to a university that every single applicant will likely have been taken, and therefore the only one where all applicants can be objectively compared.


text: The objectivity of SATs does not matter to individual students, many of whom are discriminated against by the tests. Subjective factors can be comparative if students’ backgrounds are taken into account. By contrast, the SAT, by its very use and existence, legitimizes its results as an “objective” measure of ability and capacity, which in turn legitimizes schools in discriminating against the vast majority of poor students who do worse on the exam, even if it helps a few out on an individual level. It would be much better to offer preferences in admission to poorer students than to legitimize discrimination.  Subjective criteria can also be successful in determining how successful someone will be in university. In a 1972 study by psychologist Jonathan R. Warre it was found that “Motivation was the quality most frequently cited by over 3400 college teachers” when asked what it takes to succeed in college. [1] Motivation cannot be objectively measured.  [1] Elert, ‘The SAT Aptitude of Demographics?’, 1992


title: education general secondary crime policing house supports random drug testing

text: None of these benefits apply if the peer pressure simply switches to harder drugs which are harder to test for or less likely to be tested for.  Moreover, peer pressure can exist outside of schools, and amongst older teenagers who have the choice to vary their attendance of sixth forms, FE colleges or senior high schools. Random drug testing could lead to older children being pressured to cut classes for prolonged periods of time, in order to take drugs, in order to be thought of as cool.  Teenagers are also notorious for believing that “nothing bad can happen to me”, even if that bad thing becomes more likely (such as being caught with a random drugs test). This is demonstrated by the fact that many teenagers already engage in illegal drug use despite the reasonably high chances that an adult will see them using drugs, smell smoke or notice the drug's effects on them in the status quo. [1]  [1] Grim, Ryan. “Blowing Smoke: Why random drug testing doesn't reduce student drug use”. Slate. March 21, 2006.


text: School's duty of care  Peer pressure drives most drug use among children and teenagers. [1] The fact that the state requires all children to be engaged in education means that most of them will be gathered into large groups in schools for most of the day, five days a week, essentially creating the necessary conditions for peer pressure to take place and be powerful. This occurs as some children face ostracism or exclusion from their peers in the social environment that the state compels them to be in if they refuse to take illegal drugs, if drug use is deemed necessary to be 'cool' or 'popular'.  It is, generally, the state that operates a western liberal democracy’s education system. Under circumstances in which children are placed into the care of the state, and are made vulnerable to peer pressure the state has a duty to ensure that children are not coerced into using drugs. This means that concerns of 'privacy' are secondary to protecting the choice not to take drugs, as ensuring the 'privacy' of all students by not having random drug tests empowers some students to socially coerce other students into using drugs when they otherwise would not.  Random drug tests help prevent cultures or norms of drug-taking (by which it can become the 'cool' thing to do) by ensuring that most drug users will be caught and helped to quit, thus protecting the choice of others not to be pressured into drug use.  [1] Rosenbaum, Marsha. “Safety First: A Reality-Based Approach to Teens and Drugs”. Drug Policy Alliance. January 1, 2007


text: Students who do not use illegal drugs do have something to fear - the violation of privacy and loss of dignity caused by random drug tests. They may well feel that they are being treated as under suspicion with no evidence or cause, and resent this imposition upon their privacy. Indeed, the indignity of drugs testing may compel children who are already in a position of vulnerability as a result of social marginalisation or personal or family problems to drop out of school entirely.


text: Prevent drug use  There is a clear and present problem with drug use among children and teenagers in many countries. According to the UK Department of Health, in 2002-2003 38% of 15 year olds had used illegal drugs, as had 8% of 11 year olds [1] . The fact that all of these children would have been in schools at the age of 15 shows that current policies of targeting the supply train of drugs (for example by arresting drug dealers and intercepting drug shipments) is failing to protect children. Therefore a more direct approach that intervenes at the point of consumption is needed, most crucially for children and teenagers, as their years in education are crucial for both their personal development and their realization of their future education and employment potential.  Drug use at a young age may lead to lifelong use and addiction. Random drug testing in schools will allow for vulnerable children's drug problems to be discovered, and assist the state in getting them the help they need to get off drugs. Random testing is especially valuable in this scenario because many infant and teenage drug users will try to disguise their drug use from parents and teachers and so avoid detection through avoiding suspicion, a tactic which will prove of no use against random drug tests which will likely affect all students at one point or another. It should also deter many students from starting taking drugs in the first place as the prospect of them being caught becomes far more likely, as they know disguising their drug use will be of no use.  [1] Department of Health. “Statistics on young people and drug misuse: England, 2003”.


text: Drug users' decisions are influenced by an irrational desire to fulfil the chemical need they feel (to get their 'high'). As a consequence many drug users in schools will simply look for ways to evade drug testing regimes that are put in place. This is a problem as drug testing is most likely to catch cannabis users (the most widely-used drug among teenagers) [1] , as cannabis endures longer in the body than other more dangerous drugs such as heroin and cocaine. This can potentially lead would-be cannabis users to switch to these harder drugs, most of which generally have significantly shorter detection times and/or are less likely to be tested for. [2] This harm clearly outweighs the benefits of catching or deterring a few more cannabis users.  [1] Department of Health. “Statistics on young people and drug misuse: England, 2003”.   [2] Rosenbaum, Marsha. “Safety First: A Reality-Based Approach to Teens and Drugs”. Drug Policy Alliance. January 1, 2007


text: No harm to non-drug users  Random drug tests will pose no harm to students who do not use illegal drugs, as they have nothing to fear from this fact being certified. If anything it serves as a vindication of their law-abidance and good character.  Random drug tests will only catch those who are actively taking drugs, as tests can be used which are unlikely to make a 'positive' reading from secondary exposure (for example, being near someone else smoking cannabis).  Those actively taking drugs need help in getting off drugs far more urgently than they need their right to 'privacy', as addiction at a young age could have a significant negative impact upon the remainder of their time in education. Therefore, non-drug users have nothing to fear from testing. As a result random checks are in the best interests of drug users.


text: Random drug tests may actually help remove mistrust between teachers and students. Individual suspicion will no longer be the cause of drug tests for students, but rather these tests will be something al students will face at one time or another. This means students may actually feel freer to approach their teachers, and they may feel the need to more keenly, as they know they may be tested at any time.


text: The students in question may not realize the long-term harms of drug use or fully understand the risks of addiction, and as they are not yet fully adult and responsible for themselves, the state has the right to ensure that they do not exercise their 'right to privacy' in a way that could be harmful to them.


text: Keeping teenagers in education  Studies in Michigan in the USA have found that random drug tests in schools do not deter drug use, as schools with and without random tests have similar levels of drug use among their pupils. [1]  It seems unlikely that random drug tests will, in fact, deter students from taking drugs. What such tests will result in, however, is a greater number of exclusions and disciplinary actions resulting from catching student drug users, which as the studies have shown has no guarantee of lowering drug use overall.  Faced with a situation of continuing to be caught and reprimanded for drug use in school due to random drug tests, many older teenagers who reach the age whereby they may choose to leave school may choose to do so in greater numbers. This may well be compounded by an adolescent desire to rebel and reject authority when it tries to prevent them doing what they want, and so a greater number of teenage students may drop out of school so as to allow themselves to continue doing what they want more easily – that is, taking drugs. Leaving school at such an age for no other reason than to pursue a drug-using lifestyle is almost certainly more harmful than the worst-case alternative, whereby they at least remain in education even if they continue to use illegal drugs, comparatively improving their future career and education choices. Simply driving teenagers out of education with random drug tests benefits no-one.  [1] Grim, Ryan. “Blowing Smoke: Why random drug testing doesn't reduce student drug use”. Slate. March 21, 2006.


text: Safeguarding the teacher-student relationship  Random drug tests change the student-teacher relationship from one of trust into one of suspicion, whereby the teachers and the school establishment become a body which many students will perceive as being out to catch them, and suspicious of all. The destruction of this trust makes it far harder for teachers to impart useful information on illegal drugs and the consequences of their use to students, and students may be less willing to seek teachers out on this information. This would lead to students relying increasingly on their peers and the internet for information on illegal drugs, and this information is far more likely to be of questionable policy or influenced by notions of drug use as 'cool' or glamorous. Thus schools' anti-drugs message may be harmed by random drug tests.


text: Right to privacy  Even if a right to privacy (which would prevent random drug testing with no reason for suspicion) does not exist in law in every country, many students being affected by drugs tests will perceive that the notional right to privacy which they believe they possess is being violated. Because they would perceive this violation as a harm, it should not be imposed without good reason. This problematizes the nature of 'random' testing, which by definition means forcing drug tests on individuals on whom there is no reasonable suspicion of drug use.  Firstly, the majority of those being tested will most likely test negative (as the previously cited statistics suggest) and so a majority will be harmed for no fault of their own, but rather as a consequence of the crimes of others. This may be seen as the equivalent of searching all homes in a neighbourhood for an illegal weapon on the suspicion that one of them was hiding it -an action which would be illegal in almost every western liberal democracy.  Further, however, even if students do engage in illegal drug use, random drug tests will additionally catch only those on whom there was previously no suspicion against (as students who show signs of drug use are already usually tested). In order to not already be under suspicion, these drug-using students would have to be engaging in their education, not disrupting the education of others, and not displaying erratic or harmful behaviour. As they are not actively harming others, these students should be subject only to the same standards as individuals in other areas of society: to only have their privacy violated by drugs tests if their behaviour actively brings them under suspicion.


text: Using random drug tests would mean that a greater number of teenage drug users would be caught and put into drug rehabilitation programs, which would surely help at least some of them. The school's duty of care means that they must at least be given this chance to give up drugs, even if they refuse it, as opposed to simply allowing them to keep using, which will most likely disrupt their education severely anyway.


title: primary secondary health health general house would provide breakfast all 0

text: Schools already have enough pressures just to educate their students, they do not need additional pressure from having to ensure their nutrition as well. In the UK kitchen improvements cost £200 million and many local councils found they needed to take money from other budgets such as school maintainance budgets showing the increase in pressure on schools. [1]  [1] BBC News, ‘Q&A; Free school meals for infants’, 2 September 2014,


text: Schools are best places to ensure good nutrition  Education is universal from 5 or 6 to 16 years old in most countries, 58% of children worldwide attend secondary school, [1] with even poor countries providing education for all from 5 to 12 years old. As a result giving breakfast at school will mean that all children between these ages receive it.  [1] Unicef, ‘58: The percentage of children of secondary school age worldwide who attend secondary school is 58’, Unicef global databases, 2008,


text: Exactly, the role of the school is to teach children, not to be providing food and using periods of time for this that could be used for lessons.


text: A school breakfast gives all students an equal start to the day  All children should have equal opportunities, a breakfast for all helps provide this. With schools providing breakfast for everyone the start to the day will be the same for all. No one will starting school hungry or thirsty. Everyone will have had a chance to wake up before their lessons start allowing them to get as good a start to the day as possible.


text: This will not be true equality. Some people naturally wake up earlier, yet many will still be feeling sleepy at 10:00. A school breakfast may have forced these students to be up even longer before their natural wake up time than would otherwise be the case.


text: There is no need for education about a healthy diet to be combined with free breakfasts for all. The teaching can be done separately just as effectively. Teaching at the same time as, or immediately before or after will simply mean students are concentrating on the food they have, not upon the lesson. Meal times are lively and social, not a good time for teaching.


text: A healthy breakfast improves students concentration  Children are in school to learn. To do this they need to concentrate. To be able to concentrate they need to have a balanced meal – one without too much sugar – that will ensure they are not hungry until lunchtime. A child who is hungry is not going to be concentrating on their studies. A study by the Indian National Institute of Nutrition has shown a regular breakfast to result in a 2% increase in test scores in addition to other health benefits. [1]  [1] Gajre, N.S., Fernandez, S., Balakrishna, N., and Vazir, S., ‘Breakfast Eating Habit and its Influence on Attention-concentration, Immediate Memory and School Achievement’, National Institute of Nutrition, 31 March 2008,


text: Breakfast teaches about health  Children need to learn about how good nutrition keeps them healthy. Providing a school breakfast means that the meal can be an educational experience and have teaching alongside. This education will ensure that when these children grow up they continue to eat healthily with future benefits for the nation’s health.


text: The upfront cost will be paid back. In the future there will be less health care costs. And there will be a more highly educated and skilled population which will mean more economic growth and tax for the government.


text: The split in responsibility under this proposal is clear; school provides breakfast, parents other meals. This split ensures that even if the parent is shirking their responsibility the child will receive some nutrition.


text: Government should focus on the most needy  A primary responsibility of the government is for reducing inequality and ensuring that everyone has a basic living standard. A basic living standard includes food. As a result providing breakfasts should be for those who are most in need of a helping hand from government. Those who are wealthier and can afford their own breakfast do not need this help so any such breakfast policy should be means tested to only apply to those who need it. This is the case with the United States School Breakfast Program.


text: Can we be sure a school meal will be healthy?  Even if the schools provide breakfast can we be sure that it will be healthy, and even if it is will the students eat it? Without individual supervision that having breakfast with parents provides it is difficult to ensure that the children are eating what they should be rather than throwing away the bits they like. In the UK there has been a campaign against the poor quality of school meals. [1] In the US there has been concern at the amounts of fresh fruit and vegtables being thrown away from school means. One study by the University of Vermont found food waste increased 56%. [2]  [1] Evening Standard, ‘Unhealthy school meals are on the menu for over a million children’, 12 January 2013,   [2] Welch, Ashley, ‘School lunch fruits and veggies often tossed in trash study finds’, CBSnews, 25 August 2015,


text: A school breakfast for all is a greater cost on schools  Everything costs. Providing free school to all breakfasts will cost the government money for ingredients, cafeteria staff, administration, even possibly new facilities. In the USA the Breakfast Program costs $3.3 billion to provide free or reduced price breakfasts to 10.1 million students. [1] There is a limited total amount of money so the cost will mean there is something else the government will not be able to do. This proposal may mean, for example, that the government cannot afford to hire more teachers to reduce class sizes.  [1] Food and Nutrition Service, ‘The School Breakfast Program’, September 2013


text: Nutrition is the parents responsibility  Parents are responsible for their children, and this includes responsibility for their meals. The parent has had to provide meals up until the start of school. They know their own child’s preferences there is little reason for this to change. Splitting responsibility between parents and schools means the burden of responsibility will no longer be clearly don't placed.


text: If the school is providing unhealthy meals then guidelines can be tightened to ensure they improve. If the students are throwing away food then there can be greater supervision by teachers. A study by Harvard University has also shown that food waste, and the amount of healthy food eaten can be increased by having more time allocated to eating. [1]  [1] Wanjek, Christopher, ‘Are Healthy School Lunch Programs a Waste?’, Livescience, 7 October 2015,


text: Focusing on need requires that the need be defined and those in need identified. It runs the risk that some people will be missed. A child having a wealthy parent does not mean that they are getting a good healthy breakfast at the start of the day. That parent may never be home in the morning, may consider breakfast unimportant, or simply be neglecting their child.


title: national law politics defence warpeace house believes us should ban use cluster

text: The international legal system already has many grey areas and often things that should be banned are not because of objections by certain countries despite their similarities to other items that are banned. A change regarding cluster bombs is not realistically going to make more people accept the international legal system.  Further, according to the exact wording of the 1997 ban on land mines, the ban exists for those items that exist to “Primarily” act as land mines. Cluster bombs act as landmines as a secondary effect and are not intended to do so. As such, it would be more inconsistent under the law to accept cluster bombs as landmines than it would be to ban them.5


text: Cluster Bombs Are Inconsistent With International Law  The international legal system is dependent on being robust and transparent in order for it to be respected by countries and states that accept it. The refusal by the U.S. to ban cluster bombs prevents the international community from doing the same within international law as the U.S. has enough political power that should it choose to ignore the law, the law itself is considered to be irrelevant.  In failing to ban cluster bombs the U.S. maintains an inconsistency within international law. Since dud cluster bombs effectively act as land mines for all intents and purposes, they are well hidden and cause indiscriminate damage, the fact that they aren’t banned is inconsistent with existing bans on land mines already. This inconsistency within international law makes the international legal system seem less credible, owing to contradictions as well as illustrating its weakness to the influence of the U.S. This makes it more difficult for countries to enforce the rules of the international legal system, such as preventing human rights violations because fewer countries will accept international law as being legitimate and will not agree to subject themselves to those rules.5


text: The U.S. is currently developing cluster bomb technology that will prevent cluster bombs from remaining armed over a long period of time. Given that the U.S. is a pioneer in this area, it knows more about the development of the technology than other countries that might have signed up to the treaty. If the efforts of the U.S. prove to be fruitful then their decision to avoid the ban will prove them as being the more politically shrewd of other liberal democracies.  Further, political status with other countries is unlikely to be entirely determined by treaties regarding cluster bombs. In fact these treaties are relatively minor and have almost no political affect by comparison to more pressing issues such as economics or other parts of international policy.7


text: Cluster Bombs Cause Unacceptable Harm to Civilians  In a modern warfare scenario, the vast majority of combat takes place in civilian areas, such as cities. Whilst cluster bombs are obviously not used for peacekeeping purposes they are used in initial assaults on these areas, particularly against larger formations of enemy troops. This means that due to the indiscriminate nature of cluster bombs, in the same way as with land mines, often both military and civilian targets are encompassed in the blast radius. This is what happened in Zagreb as Martic was targeting Croat forces but the attack due to the use of cluster weapons also killed civilians.  Further, cluster bombs often have a few bomblets which are duds and do not go on initial impact. The issue with bomblets is that they are often brightly coloured and when used in cities or populous areas they can often attract the attention of children who are very unlikely to know to be careful around them. This can result in significant harm to civilian populations well after the attack has been carried out.  Further, due to the sheer volume of duds that cluster bombs put out, attempts to demine cluster bomb bomblets is an incredibly dangerous process that in of itself costs lives.1,2,3


text: Cluster bombs, when used sensibly are used in uninhabited areas to take down military personnel. They are only intended for military targets and collateral damage when attacking military targets is something that is accepted as a regrettable problem in war.  Further, cluster bombs are simply a very effective weapon in battles between standing armies in most war. Given that cluster bombs help sides achieve victory quicker and with less resistance, they justify their use in the prevention of strife in the future by causing wars to end quickly as well as enabling assaults on well-defended sites to be performed more smoothly.  Due to their niche, cluster bombs will simply be replaced by the military with substitutes that are just as harmful.4


text: Rejecting the Ban on Cluster Bombs Hurts the international image of the U.S.  The U.S. is one of the only remaining Western Liberal democracies to allow the U.S. of cluster bombs. The continued refusal of the U.S. to tow the same line as fellow liberal democracies makes it look bad internationally; especially considering that one of the main instigators behind the cluster bomb ban is the U.K. traditionally a great ally of the U.S. politically.  The U.S. is often seen as the greatest representative of Western liberal democracy as it is the most economically powerful. Part of this political clout however, comes from the continued cooperation of other Western Liberal democracies with the U.S. in failing to the sign the cluster bomb treaty despite pressure from other countries, the U.S. fails in this capacity and loses the support of the countries that it relies on to maintain its political status.  Moreover, given that the U.S. currently does not help with demining work, this further worsens relationships with other countries.6


text: The improvement of cluster bombs in the way that opposition describes has not happened yet and these bombs have not been deployed. It would be fairly easy to class these new cluster bombs differently to older models should they come into effect.  However, the potential for new types of cluster bombs does not mean that the older types are any less inhumane. A ban on cluster bombs could easily exist to simply encompass older models whilst leaving newer ones alone.11


text: Cluster bombs are an ineffective weapon that often deal more damage to the side deploying the weapons than their opponents. Given modern warfare scenarios, the need for cluster bombs is not great given that in asymmetric warfare the conflict will be over relatively quickly, owing to the massive level of firepower that the West and its allies can bring against the targets that they attack, often dictators only in control of militarily weak countries. Dud cluster bombs harm any occupation following invasion and warm by harming troops that happen to stumble across them as well as harming demining personnel. This prevents effective occupation in the long run and costs lives through preventing the armed forces from achieving stability in the region as quickly.9


text: The Ban is Unfeasible  The problem with the ban on cluster bombs is that it is unfeasible in the prevention of the use of cluster bombs on the battlefield. Many countries aside from the U.S. will continue to use the weapons and will likely do so less responsibly. There is no way to persuade these countries to abandon the weapons. Countries such as China and the US are unconcerned by threats that their use can be a crime against humanity and might result in international criminal prosecutions as they are not signed up to the ICC and as Security Council members can prevent investigations of themselves or their clients.  The U.S. and Western powers continuing to manufacture cluster bombs allows them to engage with the other users of cluster bombs on the battlefield. Many countries import weapons from Western powers and as such, continuing the manufacture of cluster bombs allows Western powers to keep a check on their use by other countries.  Further, the ability for Western powers to use cluster bombs allows Western powers to discourage their use on the battlefield through the threat of retaliation with the same weaponry. As such, banning the weapons could cost the lives of soldiers on the battlefield.8


text: This House Believes That the U.S. Should Ban The Use of Cluster Bombs  Currently the U.S. is working on improving the reliability of cluster bombs. The weakness of cluster bombs, being that the bomblets often do not explode is something that U.S. military has understood for a long time. It is inefficient for the military to allow this problem to continue. As such a large amount of military funding goes into improving cluster bombs.  The U.S. is hoping to improve cluster bombs in two ways, the first is ensuring that when the cluster bombs are deployed that all bomblets explode on impact or explode very quickly after the initial barrage. However, the U.S. is also working on technology that would allow bomblets to disarm themselves after a short period of time, hence preventing accidental discharges in the future.  If these improvements work, then cluster bombs cease to cause civilian damage and will likely be an incredibly effective tool in warfare. Hence a ban on them when this technology is being deployed is premature.10


text: Cluster Bombs Have Significant Strategic Value  As mentioned earlier in the opposition counter arguments, cluster bombs are incredibly effective at dealing with large formations of troops and armoured vehicles and can cause a significant amount of damage to an opposing force in a relatively small amount of time. This niche is not filled as cheaply or as easily by other weapons that can be released from a bombing aircraft. As such cluster bombs have a significant level of military and strategic value when used in conflict.  In the case where cluster bombs were banned, it would simply fall to the military to find an effective replacement weapon for these scenarios and it is likely that these would be as problematic if not more so.8


text: Whilst the ban prevents engagement with countries that use cluster bombs, it also limits the supply of cluster bombs to these countries significantly. The West ceasing the manufacture of cluster bombs means that many countries will cease being able to get their through second or third hand sources. Whilst the Chinese might be able to fill the gap, their cluster bomb technology is not on the same level as that of the West and as such the lack of reliability with the Chinese weaponry will cause fewer countries to employ the use of cluster bombs on the battlefield.  Further, the ban on cluster bombs by Western countries sends out a strong moral message that many other smaller countries are likely to obey and follow. With the US accepting the ban international prosecution, or potentially even sanctions is considerably more likely. The U.S. holding out however, shows the West to be divided on the topic and as such prevents other countries that might be better off from banning them owing to their fear of indecision in the West.6


title: onal europe politics government house believes russia needs strong leadership

text: Putin’s initial support was based mainly on strong promises, a series of arrests of corrupt businessmen and tough action towards Chechnya that at first seemed to give positive results. His support base, however, has been significantly damaged following his increasing tendencies to control the media and to replace elected governors with presidential appointees, and by scandals surrounding the disappearance and murder of several important journalists. He has lost the support of the NGO community and most of the intelligentsia and also the originally strong backing of the USA and President Bush.


text: A strong leader has more benefits than harms  Putin is the strong leader that Russia has been waiting for. His electoral success and consistently high approval rates show that the people of Russia are ready for someone who can rid their society of increasing corruption and restore a sense of calm and equality. His ability to maintain a high level of support despite what some have called authoritarian tendencies shows that people are ready to sacrifice a certain degree of freedom for the promise of stability. Enthusiasm for Putin among the young also shows that he does not only appeal to those looking back to past certainties.


text: Putting your hopes and trust in a single person can be fairly dangerous, particularly in a transition period. Putin is not the state and his ability to control and represent the state and the population at large is questionable. Putin is also not a saint and an example to be followed. His authoritarian tendencies do not have insignificant effects: at this point most Russian media is controlled by the state, decisions continue to be made behind closed doors without consultation, Russia has once again become the pariah of the international community, the Chechen conflict has spilled into new attacks against civilians resulting in the death of thousands of people including children (one only has to mention the horrible attacks in Beslan and the Moscow theatre), etc, etc. Putin’s stubborn refusal to accept international help in the case of the stuck submarine Kursk also resulted in the unnecessary death of tens of people.


text: Stability is more important than reform  Since the fall of communism, Russia has plunged into a deep economic recession. The introduction of market reforms and privatization has led to a swift increase in inequalities coupled with an increase in corruption. The chaos of economic and political reform, along with the chaos of the break-up of former USSR, has left the majority of the population both disillusioned and distrustful of their government. In a period of such chaos, stability seems to be much more important than reform. A strong leader is the only solution to providing such stability, setting a clear direction and pulling a country at risk of falling apart together again. This is also proven from various polls among the Russian population – “…The most eye-catching statistic is the overwhelming majority of respondents who say that order is more important for Russia than democracy – 72 per cent, with 16 per cent responding conversely.” (1)


text: All periods of transition have been chaotic by definition and reforms are by their nature disruptive. At the same time, it is only through these reforms that a future of freedom and prosperity is possible. While a long transition process can certainly cloud minds and turn people into distrustful and disillusioned individuals, one must keep in mind that it is precisely at these moments that the risk of authoritarian tendencies re-emerging is highest. The people of Russia agree in polls over and over again that democracy is and should be their future. We must not let the immediate chaos of reform scare us into a fake stability. Even if still Russians prefer stronger leadership the number of these people is decreasing and the tendency shows that more and more are starting to evaluate the true value of democracy - “…But that number is actually down from the last time VTsIOM conducted a similar survey in 2000, when 75 per cent of Russians said they favored order, and 13 per cent – democracy. “ (1)


text: History is not destiny and a highly-selective view of Russia's past should not lead us to prefer authoritarian rule today. The Tsars and their communist successors killed millions of people through brutal rule and failed policies - made possible by the same lack of consultation and accountability that we see in Russia today. Only a vigorous multi-party democracy, fully independent legal system and free media can ensure that the disasters of the past are not repeated. Nor is there any reason why such a system could not take root in Russia - it is no more diverse than many other countries and modern communications mean that mere distance is not a problem. And there is nothing in the culture or temperament that makes Russians uniquely unsuited to democracy.


text: A strong leader is working in the state’s best interest  Putin’s authoritarian style is not a threat to democracy but rather a requirement for a successful and quicker transition. Having Putin control the media is probably healthier than having it be controlled by a corrupt few that promote their personal interests rather than the interest of the state and thus those of the population at large. Democracy is a goal and while certain countries believe themselves to have achieved it, they are constantly struggling to maintain it. As a young democracy, Russia is still working towards defining its own version of democracy and finding what works best in its case.


text: Russia as a state and Russians as a nation need strong leadership  Historically, Russia has always needed strong centralised leadership for it to make progress. This was true both in imperial times under tsars such as Peter the Great (who made Russia a European power and built St Petersburg) and Alexander II (who freed the serfs), and since 1917 under Lenin and Stalin. Russia is too big, too diverse and too thinly-populated for western systems of representative democracy to be applied. Culturally its people are temperamentally suited to following the decisive lead of a strong ruler who can unite them in the face of great challenges. Without such a ruler Russia is likely to fragment with local strongmen grabbing power in the regions, religious fundamentalism dominating much of the Caucasus and Central Asia, and economic stagnation.


text: All of these speculations are rather unreasonable and tend to create a public opinion which does not cooperate entirely with the truth. Such drastic conclusions can be made just about any other country. It is true that Vladimir Putin is a strong leader and a powerful figure in the Russian political life, but this does not mean that he is a puppet master, who decides the entire faith of Russia and the Russian population. The political life cannot go without political games, intrigues and deals, but this is just how the policy works and this is how it has been working for a long time. Political interests mix up with business interests and it is actually important to have a strong leader in the face of Putin, who, unlike a lot of politicians will not be influenced by big corporate players or at least will not be influenced as much. Putin’s political career has been successful and his rating among the population are the simplest proof - According to public opinion surveys conducted by Levada Center, Putin's approval rating was 81% in June 2007, and the highest of any leader in the world. His popularity rose from 31% in August 1999 to 80% in November 1999 and since then it has never fallen below 65%. Observers see Putin's high approval ratings as a consequence of the significant improvements in living standards and Russia's reassertion of itself on the world scene that occurred during his tenure as President.


text: The best possible way to tackle the corruption issue, which lets face it is one of the major problems in Russia nowadays, is through a strong leader. Eastern European democratic countries are the pure example that corruption spreads when there is no strong leadership. The corruption in these countries is an obstacle to their economic development. As a matter of fact present president Dmitry Medvedev has launched policies and new projects in order to fight back corruption – “ Fighting corruption has been a top agenda of President Dmitry Medvedev. An Anti-Corruption Council was established by Medvedev in 2008 to oversee the Russia's anti-corruption campaign. The central document guiding the effort is the National Anti-Corruption Strategy, introduced by Medvedev in 2010.” (2) In fact, increasing corruption might prove to be more dangerous than terrorist attacks since it would create powerful drug, oil and weapons cartels as well as human trafficking problems. Therefore a strong leader is necessary to cope with this critical matter.


text: Russia does not have true democracy  The status quo in Russia is highly controversial. On the one hand it is considered a democracy – it has all the structures and norms of a democracy. On the other hand there are many attacks and proof that the Russian governance is far from democratic: The joint observer team for the Council of Europe and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe criticised the Russian elections as "not fair and failed to meet many OSCE and Council of Europe commitments and standards for democratic elections," with "abuse of administrative resources, media coverage strongly in favour of the ruling party". The polls "took place in an atmosphere which seriously limited political competition" meaning "there was not a level political playing field". The 2007 parliamentary election resulted in United Russia gaining 64.1% of the vote. (3)  Furthermore not only there isn’t election freedom, there is not academic freedom either – “The European University at St Petersburg has been forced to suspend teaching after officials claimed its historic buildings were a fire risk. This forced all academic work to cease. The University had been running a program that advised Russian political parties, including how to ensure elections are not being rigged. The project they are involved in called Interregional Electoral Chains of Support was to develop and raise the effectiveness of electoral monitoring in Russia's regions. The university has also been attacked for having close ties to the west, particularly US and UK universities” (4)  There are cases of murdered journalists, who were “inconvenient” to the authorities. This also raises the question whether a strong leadership is better for the people.  Basic freedoms are denied to the Russian population. In the 21st century this is simply unjust. Therefore strong leadership creates more wrong than it does good.


text: Corruption, an essential issue in Russia, is due to the strong leadership  There is a link between the high levels of corruption and the strong leadership of Russian president and prime minister of Russia. – “Some of Russia's most prominent opposition figures have produced a report accusing Prime Minister Vladimir Putin of presiding over a boom in corruption and enriching his inner circle over the past decade… Putin and President Dmitry Medvedev themselves have 26 "palaces" and five yachts, which in turn require costly state upkeep, according to the report.” (8)  Many argue that if it weren’t for the power of the prime minister and ex-president Putin, also his strong authority and management, corruption would have been minimized long ago.


text: The status quo reveals that several powerful and influential people are in charge of the whole state  What is occurring in Russia now is closer to dictatorship rather than to strong leadership. Many commentators of the Russian political stage share the opinion that Medvedev is just a pawn in the hands of the former president and current prime minister – Putin. “The leading role still clearly belongs to Putin. This reflects the unspoken agreement that was reached between Putin and Medvedev,” said Yevgeny Volk, an independent political analyst in Moscow. (6) Russia’s both external and internal policy have not changed after the elections in 2008 and are following the same path, which is another argument that Putin continues to pull the strings.  In fact, the more important question is not whether or not Medvedev is a pawn, but who is actually in charge – “Kremlin-watchers say this system of interlocking and competing clans that is managed by Putin comprises the core of Russia's ruling elite. The key players, the people with decision making power, number about thirty. The inner circle, most agree, comprises about twelve people… There are something like a dozen of the most influential guys in the first circle and perhaps two dozen who are less influential in the second circle. These are not only managers but also shareholders who are not that visible or public...Not only do they manage Russia...but they also enrich themselves pretty actively.” (7) This poses the debate is such a status quo in the best interest of Russia and its people or is the exact opposite.


text: Proper democratic checks and balance are the only way to real problem-solving  There is a fine line between enough authority to fight corruption and enough authority to oppress a population. Many corrupt, authoritarian leaders have risen to power through the promise of social reform and of wiping out drug cartels and gangsters. A society living in fear and believing that all their problems will be solved by a powerful leader will never be able to overcome its problems. Empowering individuals and accepting risk is ultimately the only true solution to such problems. Even if Putin were completely pure himself, centralising power so completely gives great influence to those advisers and ministers around him and makes corruption in government inevitable. Only by building in proper democratic checks and balances, including criticism from a free media and legal system, can accountability be created and corruption or incompetence tackled.


text: The current president Dmitry Medvedev is working on and introducing policies toward corruption. Actually this is his main strategy. It is a well-known fact that Medvedev keeps close relations with the former president Putin and discusses Russian relations and policy with him. If the abolishment of the corruption was standing in the way of Putin, such a strategy would not have been undertaken by Medvedev. – “Speaking to a group of Russian experts and journalists, he said that corrupt officials ran Russia. "They have the power. Corruption has a systemic nature, deep historic roots. We should squeeze it out. The battle isn't easy but it has to be fought. I don't think we can achieve tangible results in one year or two. If I am a realist we could get good results in 15." “(9)  Exactly strong leadership can deal with the difficult issue of corruption in the Russian state. And the new policies of the current president clearly present that.


text: Russia has the attributes of a democracy. It is a federal state with a constitution. It has a two chamber legislature; the lower house is the Duma with 450 members elected from nationwide party lists based upon proportional representation. The Upper house; the Federation Council has two representatives from each of Russia’s 89 regions and republics that are chosen by the regional governors and legislatures. Elections for the President are every four years who then appoints the prime minister who in turn appoints the government. Russia therefore appears to have the necessary structure to be a democracy as each of the branches or government are independent.  What Russia is doing is combining the modern democratic governance with better control and management.  Shortly after one of the reporters’ death (which death is thought to be a political order) the head of the human rights organisation issued a strongly worded statement alleging the involvement of state authorities and the area's premier Ramzan Kadyrov in this particular death. This statement was not suppressed in Russia and means that there is freedom of speech. There maybe a strong amount of state control of the press similar to Italy which is a problem but the right still remains. (5)


title: onal europe politics leadership house believes uk would have more influence

text: In the areas of policy where rapid responses are necessary even within the EU the UK retains its freedom of action. The areas where there is joint policy are issues such as trade and environment negotiations which are always slow anyway. Defence and security are areas where power remains with the member states. The only areas of foreign policy where the slow speed of the EU comes up against slow decision making are areas where joint policy is a benefit as in response to the migration crisis; no one nation could have responded alone, even Germany, who take in most migrants needed there to be a path to the country.


text: Britain will have greater ability to respond quickly  Whatever the EU is we can all agree it is not the fastest and most responsive of institutions. As a result of needing the input of 28 countries EU external policy is slow and faltering. Leaving will enable the UK greater freedom to create its own policies and to reframe them in response to changing circumstances and challenges. The UK will no longer need to take into consideration any other country’s views.


text: As a smaller and less attractive market the UK will inevitably get a less good deal than it could have with the whole of the EU at its back. Moreover if the UK still wants free access to the EU market, which accounts for 45% of UK exports and 53%, [1] it will still not have a completely free hand economically. Norway for example may retain close economic links and freely trade with Europe but does not have any ability to make decisions on EU rules and must accept their regulations – clearly a worse position than the UK now. [2]  [1] Webb, Dominic, and Keep, Matthew, ‘In brief: UK-EU economic relations’, House of Commons Library, Briefing Paper, No. 06091, 19 January 2016, p.3, www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06091.pdf  [2] Eide, Espen Barth, ‘We pay, but have no say: that’s the reality of Norway’s relationship with the EU’, The Guardian, 27 October 2015,


text: The UK would have a completely independent foreign policy  Britain’s is not completely sovereign within the European Union with the EU having a common foreign and security policy and all economic negotiations taking place under the auspices of the EU trade commissioner, it is what the EU refers to as an ‘exclusive power’, rather than the Foreign Office. [1] Exiting would give these powers back to the UK. Regardless of how these powers are used this will mean the UK has more influence and freedom to manoeuvre as it will have more options with which it can negotiate with other powers.  [1] ‘Policy making: What is trade policy’, European Commission,


text: It is a misconception that any nation has complete sovereignty in the realm of international affairs, the restraints and restrictions as a result of being in or out are simply different. Every foreign policy has to operate within the context of the international system, and the capabilities with which the state has. Leaving the EU will give back certain areas with which the UK can negotiate but at the same time will ensure the UK is a lone voice rather than part of a combined negotiating position. The common foreign policy is just that; 28 countries making the same point, much more difficult for even the biggest nations to ignore. The decision making is done by all the heads of state/government so cannot be said to represent a loss of sovereignty. [1]  [1] ‘Foreign & security policy at EU level’, EUR-lex, updated 8 December 2015,


text: Ukraine may not be a high priority itself for British foreign policy but Russia is still a major, possibly the most major, threat. The UK has had very poor relations with Russia for years with various spy incidents such as the murder of Alexander Litvinenko [1] and with Russian bombers regularly being intercepted near the UK, six times in 2015, [2] even before we get onto Russian aggression in Georgia and Ukraine and British and Russian interests in the Middle East often being at loggerheads. The migration crisis may not directly affect the UK but it's cause, Syria and Middle Eastern instability, is a major concern for the UK as a result of UK nationals joining Daesh.  [1] Owen, Robert, ‘Report into the death of Alexander Litvinenko’, The Litvinenko Inquiry, January 2016,   [2] ‘RAF jets intercept Russian bombers heading to UK’, BBC news, 17 February 2016,


text: EU economic preference will no longer bind Britain  As a customs union the EU has a common external tariff set at the EU level meaning that the UK cannot tailor its external trade policy to its own needs. Instead the UK will be free to negotiate its own free trade agreements with any power it wishes. This may be individually or joining larger trade groupings such as the currently being negotiated Trans Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership deal between the USA, Canada, and the EU. it also means the UK is free to reject such joint agreements, as many campaigning groups would like with the Trans Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership deal. [1] Countries which are not in regional blocks have not suffered as a result, South Korea has 24 free trade agreements [2] and despite an economy that is just over half the size of the UK’s has trade in goods worth similar amounts;$1,098bln $1,190bln [3] but importantly gets to negotiate each one itself and to its own terms and conditions.  [1] See #noTTIP,   [2] ‘Free Trade Agreements’, Asia Regional Integration Centre, 2015,   [3] Adding exports and imports of merchandise, ‘Korea, Republic of and United Kingdom’, World Trade Organisation,


text: UK will be disentangled from EU affairs  Leaving the EU would mean that Britain is no longer entangled in foreign policy issues that are of little interest to it and instead could devote itself to other more productive issues. The two main foreign policy crises for the EU at the moment are Ukraine and migration, neither of which concern the UK when not a member of the EU. Migration would be stopped at the channel while Ukraine is at the opposite end of the EU. The EU would essentially become a buffer for the UK.


text: It is undeniable that in some areas the EU is a force multiplier. But many of the issues it uses this leverage on are not areas of concern to a UK that has left the EU; migrants arriving in Greece are of little national interest to the UK. Britain would instead focus its weight on areas that are of direct concern such as terrorism. In other areas the multiplier simply saves the UK a little money; could the UK have an embassy in Djibouti? Certainly if it wished, but it is not an area of primary concern to the UK.


text: The UK has more influence as a power in the second tier being sought after rather than having its voice swamped in the EU where it is but one of 27 voices. The UK will retain its UN Security Council seat and nuclear weapons, it will remain a powerful country that is relevant across all sorts of areas, it will simply be less constrained.


text: Power is shifting to the East  Geography has a great influence on the position of nations and their foreign policies. For example it is the UK’s Island nation status that is a major reason why it is not fully committed to the European project. Attention internationally is now shifting to East Asia where the main rising powers are; China and India. This means that the UK’s position is less geographically important so to compensate the UK needs Europe; China’s leader Xi Jinping on his state visit to Britain stated China wants “a united EU, and hopes Britain… can play an even more positive and constructive role in promoting the deepening development of China-EU ties.” [1] The United States, Britain’s main ally since World War II, is much less interested in Europe.  [1] ‘China wants Britain in a united European Union, Xi Jinping tells David Cameron’, South China Morning Post, 23 October 2015,


text: Leaving the EU will mean the UK will have less regional influence  Like it or not the UK is a part of Europe geographically and as such the countries that are most important to UK foreign policy are also in Europe. Leaving the EU will damage relations with those powers that are currently a part of the EU, and potentially also those who are used to dealing with the UK as part of the EU. The United States has noted it “benefits from a strong UK being part of the European Union” [1] in much the same way as the UK does. If this is the UK's strongest ally's view what would be the view of the powers from whom out would mean divorce? The UK will be outside the group trying to influence it rather than on the inside. The EU states will no longer need to listen to the UK on a wide range of issues where it has previously been a key voice.  [1] Earnest, Josh, ‘Press Briefing by the Press Secretary Josh Earnest’, White House, 14 March 2016,


text: The EU is a force multiplier  The UK gets more bang for the buck as a result of being a member of the EU. It has representation in more countries as a result of the European External Action Service (equivalent of the Foreign Office) thus extending UK influence to countries where it would not otherwise have representation. For example the EU have representation in Djibouti [1] whereas the UK individually is represented there from neighbouring Ethiopia. [2]  The UK, along with France, and to a lesser extent Germany, leads the EU on foreign policy matters, as illustrated by the first The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy being a Briton, Catherine Ashton. [3] This means the UK essentially gains from the backing of the other 26 member states giving the UK a much more influential voice globally. For example the EU has a role in the Middle East ‘quartet’ of the EU, USA, Russia and United Nations [4] giving the UK a place at the table on the key issue of Israel Palestine where otherwise it would have none.  [1] ‘Délégation en République de Djibouti’, Délégation de l’Union européenne,   [2] ‘British Embassy Addis Ababa’, Gov.uk,   [3] ‘The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy’, Europea Union External Action,   [4] ‘The Quartet’, Office of the Quartet,


text: The UK needs to be part of a block to remain relevant  History is moving towards bigger and bigger blocks being relevant. The US and USSR dwarfed the previous global power the UK [1] and China and India look set too be bigger again. In a world where the great powers are regions of the globe in themselves to be influential requires being part of a bigger group. The EU negotiates on equal terms with China, India and the USA. The UK on its own would be very much a second order power.  [1] See Paul Kennedy’s The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, Random House, 1987


text: The UK will still be part of Europe just not in the EU. It will still be a member of a plethora of other organisations; NATO, OSCE, Council of Europe, European free trade area. Countries like France and Germany are not going to stop listening to the UK because it is no longer a member.


text: There are also advantages to this power shift; the UK is less threatened so better able to act. The UK is therefore free to align itself with whichever powers it wishes rather than having alignments dictated by geography and who is threatening the UK. In the past the threat from Germany, and then the USSR, forced the UK into an alliance with France and the USA. When it comes to deciding between the USA, China, and India the UK has a free hand. As a result the UK has a once in a lifetime opportunity to strike new “trade deals with the growth economies around the world”. [1]  [1] Boris Johnson quoted in Erixon, Fredrik, ‘Boris and the Breziteers are talking nonsense about Britain’s trade policies’, The Spectator, 1 April 2016,


title: onal americas politics government house wants line item veto amendment

text: The present system of earmarking in Congress is wide open to abuse. The party leaderships in each house can use the offer of pork, or the threat to withhold it to enforce party discipline. “Logrolling” occurs whereby an earmark is obtained in return for support on an unrelated piece of legislation. All this leads to legislators who put party above country and vote for bad legislation in pursuit of their own vested interest. They basically “are federal dollars that members of Congress dole out to favor seekers — often campaign donors. In the process, lawmakers advocate for the companies, helping them bypass the normal system of evaluation and competition.”1Forcing pork out in the open by making Congress vote to defend it after a Presidential line-item veto is the best way to remedy matters. Overall the President is more accountable to the people as a whole than individual representatives, and with their national mandate, more able to stand up to powerful interest groups.  1 David Heath and Hal Bernton, $4.5 million for a boat that nobody wanted, The Seattle Times, 15/10/07 , accessed 5/5/11


text: There are other means by which cutting earmarks could be achieved, without the drastic step of mutilating the work of the Founding Fathers. For a start, Congress could just ban the use of earmarks, unfortunately an attempt in 2010 was defeated 39-56 in the Senate.1 Existing rescission powers could be toughened by requiring Congress to hold a prompt vote on Presidential requests for appropriations cuts, rather than ignoring them as invariably happens now. The Impoundment power removed in 1974 could be restored. The convention that spending items in committee reports should be binding on the executive could be challenged. And the practice of legislating massive omnibus spending bills could be ended; more, smaller and more focused bills would make pork more obvious and make it more viable for a President to veto a whole bill without causing the federal government to collapse for want of funding.  1 Rushing , J. Taylor, 'Senate votes down ban on earmarks 39-56', The Hill, 30/11/10,accessed 5/5/11


text: The use of the line-item veto power by President Clinton in 1997 demonstrates the advantages of such authority. Although the power was declared unconstitutional in 1998 by the Supreme Court, while he held it Clinton demonstrated what could be achieved. He acted cautiously, only cancelling 82 appropriations, but these totalled nearly $2 billion1– a useful contribution in itself to reducing the federal deficit, and one that suggested that much bigger savings could be achieved by a more determined President. The Congressional Budget Office agreed according to the Congressional Budget Office "The 1997 cancellations had a relatively small impact on the budget's bottom line, but that outcome may have resulted in part from temporary factors, such as last year's balanced budget agreement."2 This period also demonstrated that Congress would still retain the power of the purse, as it was able to overrule one of Clinton’s deletions, on the Military Construction bill worth $287billion, by majority vote in both houses.3  1 It is time for congress to kill the pig, Center for individual freedom, 11/11/04, accessed 6/5/11  2 The line item veto act after one year’, Congressional Budget Office, April 1998, accessed 6/5/11  3 Marc Lacey, ‘Senate Votes 1st Override of Clinton Line-Item Vetos, Los Angeles Times, 26/2/1998, accessed 6/5/11


text: This amendment would only give the President a limited power for a limited but worthwhile purpose. The media and interest group scrutiny that accompanies the Presidency will ensure that the White House will have to justify every line-item decision made. It does not affect the Congress's power regarding policy-making, entitlement programmes or taxation. Indeed, it is little different to the existing convention of executive "Signing Statements" whereby the President can sign legislation while making it clear his intention not to fully implement aspects of it. It would create a budgetary separation of powers between the president and congress so introducing checks and balances against the abuse of power.1  1 Ferro, Lucas and De Magalhaes, Leandro M. 'Budgetary Separation of Powers in the American States and the Tax Level: A Regression Discontinuity Design', Bristol University, Oct 2009,accessed 5/5/11


text: The constitution should not be amended  We should always be cautious of altering the United States’ Constitution. Once an amendment is passed, it is extremely hard to overturn, even if its consequences are clearly negative (as the experience of constitutionally-mandated prohibition of alcohol should make clear). It would be both difficult and unnecessary. There are problems of wording and interpretation. The 1996 Act covered 22 pages and went into great detail to define the extent and limits of Presidential authority under the legislation, including the exact meanings of “single item of appropriation”, ''direct spending'' and ''limited tax benefit'', as well as the means by which Congress could override his decisions.1 It is hard to believe that a one-paragraph amendment to the Constitution could achieve such precision, opening the budgetary process up to confusion, shifting interpretation and constant legal challenge. It is also unnecessary. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia argues "The short of the matter is this: Had the Line Item Veto Act authorized the president to 'decline to spend' any item of spending ... there is not the slightest doubt that authorization would have been constitutional… What the Line Item Veto Act does instead -- authorizing the president to 'cancel' an item of spending -- is technically different."2 Thus the act could simply have been worded differently in order to make it constitutional. This would not change the substance of the ability of the ‘veto’ to cut spending.  1 One hundred fourth Congress of the United States of America at the second session, “Line Item Veto Act”, 3/1/1996, The Library of Congress, accessed 6/5/11  2 Supreme Court Justice Scalia quoted in Michael Kirkland, ‘Under the U.S. Supreme Court: Like the South, will line item veto rise again?’, upi.com, 17/4/11 accessed 6/5/11  improve this  COUNTERPOINT  "I do not take these matters lightly in amending the Constitution. However, I am convinced in this case it is the only way to provide the President with the same authority that 44 Governors already have to influence spending."1It would in general be preferable to make such a change through normal legislation, but that was attempted in 1996 and found unconstitutional. Supreme Court Justice Stevens in his majority opinion for the Supreme Court argued that it was necessary for there to be an amendment to make it constitutional, "If there is to be a new procedure in which the president will play a different role in determining the text of what may "become a law", such change must come not by legislation but through the amendment procedures set forth in Article V of the Constitution."2  1 Item veto constitutional amendment hearing before the subcommittee on the constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary House of Representatives, 23/3/00, accessed 5/5/11  2 Clinton, President of the United States, et al. v. City of New York et al. No.97-1374, United States Supreme Court, 1998,accessed 5/5/11  improve this  APPENDIX


text: Has made little difference in the past  The precedent of the Line Item Veto Act under President Clinton should warn against a constitutional amendment. The sums saved were laughably small, $355 million, in the context of the entire federal budget, $1.7 trillion, (0.02% of spending)1 but nonetheless provoked considerable friction between elected representatives and the White House. There was unhappiness that the large majority of his cuts were of earmarks requested by Republican members, and an allegation that the Administration had threatened a Congressman with the veto of an item dear to them unless they supported an unrelated piece of legislation.  1Virginia A. McMurty, 'Enhancing the President's Authority to Eliminate Wasteful Spending and Reduce the Deficit', Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services and International Security Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Committee Hearing 15/3/2011, p.9


text: A President would be able to abuse the power given to them in a line-item veto authority, leveraging it into undue influence over other elements of the legislative process. By threatening to veto items dear to particular Congressmen, they could obtain assent to bills, treaties and appointments that otherwise would not be forthcoming. Such intimidation would be subtle and hard to prove, but it would erode checks on the executive and fundamentally alter the balance of power within the constitution. This means that budgets are politicised even more than is currently the case. When the line item veto was previously used by Clinton republicans such as Rick Santorum argued that every decision "has political overtones, but that's fine, it comes with the territory," Senator Ted Stevens went further "We're dealing with a raw abuse of political power by a president who doesn't have to run again".1  1 Hugliotta, Guy and Pianin, Eric, 'Line-Item Veto Tips Traditional Balance of Power', Washington Post, 24/10/97,accessed 5/5/11


text: We should always be cautious of altering the United States’ Constitution. Once an amendment is passed, it is extremely hard to overturn, even if its consequences are clearly negative (as the experience of constitutionally-mandated prohibition of alcohol should make clear). It would be both difficult and unnecessary. There are problems of wording and interpretation. The 1996 Act covered 22 pages and went into great detail to define the extent and limits of Presidential authority under the legislation, including the exact meanings of “single item of appropriation”, ''direct spending'' and ''limited tax benefit'', as well as the means by which Congress could override his decisions.1 It is hard to believe that a one-paragraph amendment to the Constitution could achieve such precision, opening the budgetary process up to confusion, shifting interpretation and constant legal challenge. It is also unnecessary. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia argues "The short of the matter is this: Had the Line Item Veto Act authorized the president to 'decline to spend' any item of spending ... there is not the slightest doubt that authorization would have been constitutional… What the Line Item Veto Act does instead -- authorizing the president to 'cancel' an item of spending -- is technically different."2 Thus the act could simply have been worded differently in order to make it constitutional. This would not change the substance of the ability of the ‘veto’ to cut spending.  1 One hundred fourth Congress of the United States of America at the second session, “Line Item Veto Act”, 3/1/1996, The Library of Congress, accessed 6/5/11  2 Supreme Court Justice Scalia quoted in Michael Kirkland, ‘Under the U.S. Supreme Court: Like the South, will line item veto rise again?’, upi.com, 17/4/11 accessed 6/5/11  improve this  COUNTERPOINT  "I do not take these matters lightly in amending the Constitution. However, I am convinced in this case it is the only way to provide the President with the same authority that 44 Governors already have to influence spending."1It would in general be preferable to make such a change through normal legislation, but that was attempted in 1996 and found unconstitutional. Supreme Court Justice Stevens in his majority opinion for the Supreme Court argued that it was necessary for there to be an amendment to make it constitutional, "If there is to be a new procedure in which the president will play a different role in determining the text of what may "become a law", such change must come not by legislation but through the amendment procedures set forth in Article V of the Constitution."2  1 Item veto constitutional amendment hearing before the subcommittee on the constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary House of Representatives, 23/3/00, accessed 5/5/11  2 Clinton, President of the United States, et al. v. City of New York et al. No.97-1374, United States Supreme Court, 1998,accessed 5/5/11  improve this  APPENDIX